The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTenakee Springs-RoundIVGrantApp_IndianRiverDesign-Permit GRANT APPLICATION – FOR – INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DESIGN AND PERMITTING SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 – SUBMITTED TO – ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM – ROUND IV RFA #AEA-11-005 – SUBMITTED BY – CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS, ALASKA P.O. BOX 52 TENAKEE SPRINGS, AK 99841 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 22 9/10/2010 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS DBA TENAKEE SPRINGS ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Type of Entity: LOCAL GOVERNMENT / PUBLIC ELECTRIC UTILITY Mailing Address PO BOX 52 TENAKEE SPRINGS, AK 99841 Physical Address TENAKEE SPRINGS COMMUNITY BULDING TENAKEE AVENUE Telephone 907-736-2207 Fax 907-736-2207 Email citytke@gmail.com 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name Arthur Bloom Title City Councilman, Hydropower Project Manager Mailing Address PO Box 42, Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 Telephone 907-736-2222 Fax 907-736-2207 Email artmbloom@gmail.com 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or X 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 IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 22 9/10/2010 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) Indian River Hydroelectric 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 would be located on the Indian River, located approximately one mile east of Tenakee Springs. The project is located within sections 15 and 22 of township 47 south, range 63 east, of the Copper River Meridian. 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 X Design and Permitting Feasibility Construction and Commissioning Conceptual Design 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project. Replace diesel generation of electricity for the community of Tenakee Springs with renewable hydroelectric power. The City of Tenakee Springs proposes to construct a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a low head, run-of-river plant displacing the use of 44,400 gallons of diesel fuel annually. Design, engineering, and construction will involve the City of Tenakee Springs, multiple state and federal agencies, private contractors, and the Alaska Energy Authority. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 22 9/10/2010 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 Tenakee Springs Electric Utility generators use approximately 33,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Additional diesel offsets can be gained by replacing heating oil with electric heat. The proposed project would help retain money within the community by stemming the outflow of money for petroleum products and providing employment during construction and operation. Additional Public Benefits would be less pollutants discharged into the air, less risk for environmental liability, lower cost electricity - especially for commercial entities which currently pay very high rates, and potential expansion of economic base (fish processing and washeteria). 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. Tenakee Springs requests $203,000 in grant funds with $26,000 in local matching funds to complete permitting and design efforts for this project. 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. $ 203,000 2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 26,000 2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $ 229,000 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) $2,711,000 PW of costs: $2,450,500 2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $190,000 per year PW of benefits: $4,993,600 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, improve fish passage on Indian River. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 22 9/10/2010 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. Currently, the project manager is Arthur Bloom, an elected member of the city council and employee of the city (Hydroelectric Project Manager). Tenakee Springs hired Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. to complete an updated feasibility study, conceptual design, and start the permitting process for the project. Under this contract, Polarconsult is providing project management support and guidance. Additional project management support will be solicited from AEA. AEA recently completed an Energy Infrastructure Project in Tenakee Springs consisting of a Bulk Fuel Upgrade of fuel storage/handling facilities and Rural Power System Upgrade of new power generation/distribution systems. The Conceptual Design Report (August 23, 2004) included an analysis of the proposed hydroelectric project. 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.) Under our existing grant, Tenakee Springs has begun the permitting and design processes. The requested grant would be used to complete these activities. PERMITTING Land Authorizations January 2012 Receive State Permits March 2012 Agreement with Forest Service Summer 2011 Completion of environmental studies Fall 2011 Receive Federal Permits March 2012 DESIGN Final System Design September 2011 Engineers Cost Estimate September 2011 Updated financial/Economic Analysis November 2011 Final business and operational plans January 2012 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: PERMITTING Land Authorizations Receive State Permits Agreement with Forest Service Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 22 9/10/2010 Completion of environmental studies Receive Federal Permits DESIGN Final System Design Engineers Cost Estimate Updated financial/economic Analysis Final business and operational plans ADMINISTRATION Monthly/quarterly reports as required by AEA 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. The City of Tenakee will bring together the state and federal agencies having oversight of project development to identify potential problem areas and advance the permit authorizations necessary for the project. Tenakee's contractor, Polarconsult has the capability to advance permits and design of the project. If unique problems or issues arise in the permitting process, specialty contractors may be retained to address these issues. Such contractors could be retained as a subcontractor under Polarconsult or under direct contract to Tenakee Springs. 3.5 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. The proposal assumes significant involvement in the entire project by the Authority. Tenakee's Hydro Project Manager will provide quarterly or monthly reports to AEA as appropriate to current project activities. 3.6 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. This project utilizes proven technology and construction methods. Any potential problems will be resolved in the permitting and design processes. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 22 9/10/2010 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. Past studies (U.S Army COE 1984; Polarconsult, 1993) considered run-of-river hydroelectric projects of 125 to 250 kW installed capacity. The recently completed feasibility study (Polarconsult 2009) recommended a 120 kW installation. This configuration would have an 87% capacity factor, providing 916,600 kWh of energy in an average water year. 392,200 kWh of this energy would displace diesel-fired electrical generation, and 447,000 kWh would be available for other uses, such as displacing diesel fuel used for space and water heating applications. The balance is assumed to be directed to dump loads by the load governor without economic benefit. These energy projections allow for at least 10 cfs of water to be bypassed through the existing fish ladder to allow for fish passage. 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. Basic configuration of the existing system is 3 diesel electric generators; 2- 88kW peak and 1- 66kW peak capacity installed in 2007 by AEA Rural Power System Upgrade with new switchgear. The existing system has an efficiency of about 13 kWh per gallon of fuel (based on operations data from FY 2007 – 2009). 4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. The project would allow the existing diesel power plant to be shut down for much of the year. During cold or dry periods, the diesels would run in parallel with or instead of the hydro. The existing diesel plant would remain unchanged, and would provide a backup for periods when the hydro is unavailable. This would significantly reduce O&M costs for the diesels and extend their useful life. Also, reduced fuel usage for power generation will result in less air pollution and reduced potential hazards from hydrocarbon storage and transport. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 22 9/10/2010 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. Electrical power is used in residential homes, commercial businesses, city buildings, streetlights, and docks, and the REAA school building. The project could have a profound impact by lowering energy costs and making the use of electrical energy for heating feasible. Lower and more stable energy prices will tend to increase electrical demand on the system. Commercial enterprises in Tenakee Springs particularly suffer under the current energy costs, because they are not eligible for PCE subsidized rates. Lower energy costs will help to encourage commercial activity in the community, which will tend to increase electrical demand. 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 using penstock and cross flow turbine Installed capacity: 120 kW Installed capacity will be finalized in preliminary engineering to be completed in 2010. Capacity factor: 87% Annual generation: 916,600 kWh Anticipated barriers: None Integration concept: Switchgear will allow hydro to run solo or in parallel with existing diesel plant. Load governor may be used to direct excess hydro energy to discretionary loads (school, community building, other buildings). Delivery Method: New power line to tie hydro powerhouse into existing distribution grid. 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. Project development on Indian River would occur on state land. The power line would cross a combination of state and city land. The project is not located on disputed state land selections by the University. Development would involve the City of Tenakee Springs, Forest Service, USDA and State of Alaska. We expect the full cooperation of these entities based on previous discussions. 4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 22 9/10/2010 outstanding permit issues. List of applicable permits Anticipated permitting timeline Identify and discussion of potential barriers A pre-permitting stakeholders meeting held in Juneau in March 2010 identified no major permitting obstacles. All major permit applications for the project were filed in August 2010, including: FERC finding of non-jurisdiction (issued May 28, 2010) Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review Compliance/DCOM permits DNR water rights DNR easements / leases easements, ADF&G fish habitat permit, Corps of Engineers wetlands permits The project schedule assumes permitting can be completed in one year. Recent experience with ADNR on similar projects indicate land leases can take 3 or more years. Such delays would postpone this project. Other permits could be completed in one year unless agencies require extensive resource studies. The City and its consultant will work closely with DNR to expedite the leasing process so this beneficial project is not unduly delayed. Project energy estimates include the USFS's recommended 10 cfs in-stream flow reservation. USFS is aware of this project and supports it. Unforeseen requirements or conditions pertaining to fish passage on Indian River could present a technical or financial barrier to the project, but these are considered unlikely. 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 The bypass reach of Indian River is part of an enhanced fish passage corridor to upstream habitat on Indian River. USFS is aware of and supports this project. Tenakee will coordinate design of the project to protect the function of existing fish passage structures. No other unique environmental conditions or impacts apply for this project. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 22 9/10/2010 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 Total project cost through construction: $2,711,000 Grant funding requested (Design and Permitting): $203,000 Local match, as cash and in-kind services: $26,000 Estimated capital cost of the project: $2,382,000 Estimated remaining development cost (permitting, design): $229,000 (Cost estimates based on 2009 Polarconsult Feasibility Study) 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.) Total annual O&M costs for the project are $22,200. This includes estimated savings of $7,700 from avoided O&M costs on the diesel plant. O&M costs will be paid through the utility's electric rates. (Cost estimates from 2009 Polarconsult Feasibility Study) 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 city electric utility will own the project. Power will be sold to utility customers. With the requested grant, electric rates in the community would decrease from the existing rates of $0.55 to 0.65 per kWh to about $0.20 to 30 per kWh. This reduced rate would cover all utility expenses, such as operation, maintenance, repair, general, and administrative costs. These rates Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 22 9/10/2010 do not consider PCE subsidies to residential / community accounts. 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. Download the form, complete it, and submit it as an attachment. Document any conditions or sources your numbers are based on here. The Cost Worksheet is attached at the end of this application. Sources of data: City of Tenakee Electric Utility records, Polarconsult reports (1993 and 2009), 1984 Corps of Engineers report, AEA Conceptual Design report. 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 Annual fuel displacement / Lifetime (50-year) fuel displacement: - 31,400 gallons for electrical generation (1,570,000 gallons over life) - 13,000 gallons for space/water heating (650,000 gallons over life) Annual Revenue/Savings (using $4.27 per gallon fuel cost in 2013, per mid range EIA fuel projections developed by AEA. Note that AEA’s fuel cost projections for heating oil more closely match recent costs in Tenakee than do the cost projections for power plant diesel fuel, so the fuel oil price projections are used instead. - $134,078 avoided fuel (electricity) - $55,510 avoided fuel (heating) Tenakee Springs will pursue sales of green tags for energy from the project and other revenue streams that may be available to help offset the cost of the project and future utility costs. Non-economic benefits of the project to Alaskans include: - reduced air pollution and noise pollution within Tenakee Springs – improves quality of life and health of residents, and makes Tenakee a more desirable place to live. - Stable and reasonable energy costs will also make Tenakee a more desirable place to live, and will help to attract local economic activity such as tourism, fishing, etc. The hydro combined Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 22 9/10/2010 with the hot springs will bolster the sustainability of the community for the long term. Commercial enterprises in Tenakee in particular will benefit from lower energy costs. Lower energy costs will make local businesses such as stores, restaurants, and lodges more competitive and will increase Tenakee's sustainability and long term viability as a community. Tenakee has struggled in recent years to attract and retain working families with children to keep the local school open. Affordable energy, and the local economic activity it will encourage and support, will help considerably in our long term efforts to help the community thrive. SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum: Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered. How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project Identification of operational issues that could arise. A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing systems that may be require to continue operation Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits The hydro would be operated by the city's existing electric utility. Maintenance and operations of the hydro would be paid through electricity rates. No operational issues are expected. Operating costs would include continuing (decreased) O&M costs for the diesel plant, and costs to operate and maintain the hydro. Our consultant estimated $15,200 annually for hydro O&M and $10,800 annually for hydro repair and replacement (R&R). The R&R budget is an annualized value over the 50-year life of the project. Annual R&R costs would be lower in the early years of the project and higher in the later years of the project. $3,900 per year is budgeted for state lease royalties. The City of Tenakee Springs will report the savings and benefits of this project to AEA for the life of the project. SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants. Tenakee paid for a Feasibility study in 1993 to evaluate the project. More recently, development work on the hydro is currently underway with a Denali Commission grant managed by AEA. The ongoing phase of the project includes the recently completed feasibility study, preliminary design, and starting the permit process for the project. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 22 9/10/2010 Under our current work, Tenakee obtained a detailed LIDAR topographic survey of the project site, which our engineering consultant is using to develop preliminary designs and plans of the project. These are scheduled to be completed this fall, and will help to advance processing of permits needed for the project. Applications have been filed for all major permits needed for the project, and the city has funds under its existing grant to advance these permit applications until the requested funds are available in July 2011. The requested funds would be used to complete the design and permitting processes. Tenakee Springs has been very successful in managing our existing grant funds. We are fully meeting the requirements of the grant for the current work. 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 community of Tenakee Springs has been supportive of this project since the Polarconsult study in 1993 showed its economic viability. Several city council resolutions have been passed over the years affirming the city’s desire to see the project move towards construction. The opportunity exists for the city to put up for sale city owned land to provide matching funds or to raise construction funds for this project. The city previously did this to provide financial support of the Fuel Department. 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 – GrantBudget3.doc Investment to Date: - $10,000 in city funds for 1993 study - City has expended in-kind services over the past 15 years to advance the project – discussions with state/federal agencies, etc. - $125,000 for 2009 feasibility study, preliminary design, and permitting (under way) (combination of city funds and Denali Commission grant) Requested Grant Funds Total project cost through construction: $2,711,000 Grant funding requested (design/permitting): $203,000 Local match, as cash and in-kind services: $26,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round IV Grant Application Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA 11-005 Application ATTACHMENTS 9/10/2010 ATTACHMENT A – CONTACT INFORMATION AND RESUMES 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 IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/10/2010 ATTACHMENT B – COST WORKSHEET Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/10/2010 ATTACHMENT C – GRANT BUDGET FORM Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IVGrant Budget Form8/30/2010 Indian River Hydroelectric Project - Design and Permitting Tenakee Springs, AlaskaRE- Fund Grantee MatchingSource of Matching Funds: Grant Funds FundsCash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other1. PERMITTING12/31/2013$85,000$0Cash and In-Kind Services$85,000 1.1 Land use, right-of-way, easement approvals " $30,000 $0 Cash and In-Kind Services $30,000 1.2 Other State Permit Approvals (DNR water rights, DFG Fish Habitat, DCOM coastal zone)" $21,000 $0 Cash and In-Kind Services $21,000 1.3 USDA FS Agreements" $10,000 $0 Cash and In-Kind Services $10,000 1.4 Environmental & Technical Studies " $14,000 $0 Cash and In-Kind Services $14,000 1.5 Federal Permits (COE)" $10,000 Cash and In-Kind Services $10,0002. FINAL DESIGN12/31/2013$118,000$0Cash and In-Kind Services$118,000 2.1 Final System Design" $92,000 $0 Cash and In-Kind Services $92,000 2.2 Engineer's Cost Estimate" $11,000 $0 Cash and In-Kind Services $11,000 2.3 Updated economic and financial analysis " $10,000 $0 Cash and In-Kind Services $10,000 2.4 Final business and operational plan " $5,000 $0 Cash and In-Kind Services $5,0003.0 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT$0 $26,000 Cash and In-Kind Services$26,000TOTALS$203,000$26,000$229,000Direct Labor & Benefits$0 $26,000 Cash and In-Kind Services $26,000Travel & Per Diem$0 $0$0Equipment$0 $0$0Materials & Supplies$0 $0$0Contractual Services$203,000 $0$203,000Construction Services$0 $0$0Other$0 $0$0 TOTALS$203,000$26,000$229,000TASK TOTALSBudget Categories:Sub-Task TotalsMilestone or TaskAnticipated Completion Date Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/10/2010 ATTACHMENT E – ELECTRONIC COPY OF APPLICATION Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/10/2010 ATTACHMENT F – AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/10/2010 ATTACHMENT G – GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/10/2010 ATTACHMENT I – MAPS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION MAP INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT MAP INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INTAKE STRUCTURE - ELEVATION AND SECTION INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POWERHOUSE - PLAN AND ELEVATION