HomeMy WebLinkAboutPolarconsult Southern Railbelt Grant Application4
GRANT APPLICATION
– FOR –
SOUTHERN RAILBELT
SMALL HYDRO REGIONAL
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010
– SUBMITTED TO –
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM – ROUND IV
RFA #AEA-11-005
– SUBMITTED BY –
polarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99503
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 23 9/9/2010
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
Type of Entity:
Engineering Consultant / IPP
Mailing Address
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99503
Physical Address
--SAME--
Telephone
907-258-2420
Fax
907-258-2419
Email
joel@polarconsult.net
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Joel D. Groves
Title
Project Manager
Mailing Address
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
907-258-2420
Fax
907-258-2419
Email
joel@polarconsult.net
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 IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 23 9/9/2010
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)
Southern Railbelt Small Hydro Reconnaissance 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 study are would cover the southern railbelt, including the areas served by Matanuska
Electric Association (MEA), Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Homer Electric Association
(HEA), Municipal Light and Power (MLP), and Seward Electric System (SES). All of the
communities served by these utilities, and other communities served by the railbelt energy grid,
could benefit from the projects identified in this study.
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)
X Reconnaissance Design and Permitting
Feasibility Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
Conduct a comprehensive reconnaissance study of small hydro resources on the southern railbelt.
The study would focus on alpine rivers and streams in proximity to the areas currently served by
MEA, CEA, HEA, MLP, and SES. The emphasis of the study would be on low-impact run-of-
river resources between 500 and 5,000 kW installed capacity. Investigated resources would
include rivers and streams shown on USGS 1:63360 maps located in economic proximity to
existing electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure. The study would be conducted in
three screening stages. The first stage would include a desktop assessment of the resources to
estimate power potential and fatal flaws (technical, environmental, economic and/or political
barriers). The second stage resource screening would be a desktop technical and financial
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 23 9/9/2010
analysis of the resources that pass stage 1 to identify the most cost effective resources. The third
stage resource screening would be a field visit to those resources that pass stage 2 to collect
further data about the resource and provide reconnaissance-level technical and financial analyses.
The budget allows for up to 30 projects to receive stage 3 review and analysis.
The final deliverable for the project would be a report detailing the resources investigated and
the results of all screening stages. The outcome of the study would be the most comprehensive
list yet compiled of the most promising hydropower resources in the southern railbelt region,
ranked by development viability. This would guide AEA, utilities, and other regional decision
makers to implement more effective planning efforts for power supply in the railbelt.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 23 9/9/2010
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.)
This project would provide AEA, utilities, and other decision makers a short list of small
hydropower projects on the railbelt that warrant further consideration. This would help direct
future capital to the best projects, maximizing benefits to the public.
Initial estimates suggest that there are 50-150 MW of economical small hydro in the southern
railbelt. These projects would provide an estimated 220,000 to 660,000 MWh of energy
annually. Most of this energy would be available in the summer time, allowing natural gas to be
diverted from electrical generation to gas storage for winter needs. These projects would also
provide winter output. 50 MW of small hydro would provide an estimated 10 MW of power
during the coldest months of the year, and an estimated 5 MW of power in April and May, just
before breakup.
It is estimated that collective development of small hydro in the region could achieve the
following public benefits:
- Faster development. With reasonable permitting schedules, small hydros can be
operational within 2-5 years from start of reconnaissance. Multiple small projects can
also be advanced in parallel. Small hydro is one of the few renewable energy
technologies that can be operational in time to help avoid the annual gas shortages
threatening southcentral Alaska.
- Distributed generation. The distributed nature of multiple small hydro developments will
tend to improve grid efficiency and reliability. This will work to lower costs to
ratepayers.
- Competitive costs. Small hydros in the southern railbelt can market their power on a
commercial basis in a range starting at $0.06 to 0.09 per kWh. This is competitive with
the near-term avoided cost for natural gas, making the transition to renewable energy
revenue neutral to the utilities and rate payers. Because these are long-life projects,
future generations can enjoy low-cost energy from these projects.
- Local O&M Jobs Unlike large hydro or most other renewable technologies, small hydros
can be designed, built, and maintained by Alaskan businesses. This will keep more of
our utility dollars in Alaska, employing Alaskans and circulating in our economy. It is
estimated that 50 to 150 MW of small hydro would directly create the equivalent of 50-
150 permanent full-time local jobs over the 50-year life of these projects.
- Local Construction Jobs Unlike large hydro or most other renewable energy
technologies, small hydro can be constructed by local Alaskan firms and workers.
Approximately 1/3 of the construction cost of small hydros goes directly into hire of local
businesses and workers.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 23 9/9/2010
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.
Total funds to complete this reconnaissance study are $1,455,000. Of this, $80,000 would be in-
kind services contributed by Polarconsult and the remaining $1,375,000 would be grant funds.
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. $ 1,375,000
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 80,000
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $ 1,455,000
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)
$175,000,000
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $302,863,000
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, increase
regional energy security,
increase recreational
access to alpine areas,
significant local construction
and O&M jobs, avoid
exposure to carbon taxes,
and many others.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 23 9/9/2010
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.
Joel Groves, PE will manage this project for Polarconsult. Mr. Groves has successfully managed
numerous studies for small hydroelectric projects in Alaska, both on and off the railbelt.
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.)
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Contract with consultant to perform the study Not Applicable
Stage 1 Resource Assessment and Analysis July 31 to Dec. 31, 2011
Stage 2 Resource Assessment and Analysis
(For resources passing Stage 1 review) Jan. 1 to April 30, 2012
Stage 3 Resource Assessment and Analysis
(For resources passing Stage 2 review) May 1 to Sept 30, 2012
Final Report and Recommendations October 1 to December 31, 2012
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
Quarterly reports to AEA
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:
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Resource identification and analysis (stream gauging, site inspections)
Completion of Stage 1 Resource Review (resource inventory, basic technical,
environmental, economic, political viability screening)
Completion of Stage 2 Resource Review (more detailed technical, environmental,
economic, and political viability screening)
Completion of Stage 3 Resource Review (field visits and resource-specific consultations
to assess technical, environmental, economic, political viability)
Final report and resource ranking for future study
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 23 9/9/2010
ADMINISTRATION
Quarterly reports to 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.
Polarconsult personnel will be used on this project. Where appropriate, professional consultants
may be used on the project. As an example, a professional hydrologist may be retained to
develop hydrology models used for resource assessment.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Polarconsult Project Manager Joel Groves will manage and monitor the project. Mr. Groves will
communicate project status and issues to AEA’s designated grant manager quarterly or more
frequently as appropriate.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
The project only involves data collection and evaluation of the potential resource. Field
activities will be conducted by Polarconsult employees and/or consultants that will carry
necessary insurance and will conduct work in a manner consistent with standard industry
practice.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 23 9/9/2010
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.
The total extent of the energy resource considered by this proposal is not well defined. At 50
MW, which is considered a conservative estimate of the available regional resource, the annual
energy generation would be approximately 220,000 MWh at a 50% capacity factor. At 150 MW
of small hydro projects, the annual energy would be estimated at 660,000 MWh annually.
For comparison, the first three rounds (and the 2008 AEA/Denali Commission round) of the RE
program have generated proposals for small hydro projects totaling over 35 MW just in the
southern railbelt region. Many known resources have not been included in these proposals to
date, and many of these projects have been judged not viable at a typical cost of $50,000 to
$100,000 per resource for reconnaissance assessment. There is a clear need for a comprehensive
review of this resource to better guide the finite public funds available for renewable energy
development.
Small hydro has the following advantages:
- Through proper site selection, these projects can have minimal environmental impacts.
Some projects can even be configured to enhance anadromous fish habitat.
- Barring unusual permitting issues, projects should be able to be commissioned within as
little as 2 years. Parallel development of multiple small hydro projects can result in
significant capacity coming on line in 2 to 5 years.
- In other jurisdictions, small hydro has been found to create about 1 full-time job
equivalent per MW of installed capacity. These are local jobs that will last for the life of
the project – typically 50 years or more.
- The most economical small hydro sites are competitive with current or projected near-
term avoided costs for gas-fired energy. These projects can be revenue neutral to the
public. As gas costs rise in the future, more small hydro resources are expected to become
cost neutral against natural gas.
- Distributed generation. Most or all of the projects in this study would interconnect at
distribution voltages, reducing the loadings and losses on the region’s transmission
system. This would serve to incrementally extend the effective capacity of the
transmission system and increase the efficiency of the system. It would also tend to
increase grid reliability, as the hydros could serve local communities or neighborhoods
during extended power outages.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 23 9/9/2010
Small hydro has the following disadvantages:
- Utilities and stakeholders tend to ignore the cumulative benefits of multiple small projects.
This makes it difficult for these projects to get reasonable power purchase contracts with
utilities, which can also become a barrier to project financing.
- A lack of clear state policy and sufficient personnel resources has resulted in significant
unreasonable delays securing permits for projects.
- Many financing entities do not understand small hydro. This, combined with lack of
clarity on long term generation and utility structure on the railbelt tends to unreasonably
increase the cost of financing for small projects. This decreases the economic viability of
otherwise feasible projects.
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.
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
natural 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. MEA is considering installing a series of reciprocating engines
with individual capacity of approximately 7 MW each.
Small hydro is expected to fit very well with MEA’s proposed generation plans as it would allow
MEA to completely shut down several of their gensets for much of the summer, and significantly
curtail loadings during the winter months. This would save MEA significant costs on avoided
O&M and fuel for the displaced genset.
Similarly, CEA, HEA, and MLP all have plans to install gas turbines in the near future. With
small hydros operational, these plants can be throttled back or individual units shut down to
conserve gas. Also, the small hydros can be operated in concert with the region’s existing large
hydros to more efficiently manage the reservoirs at Bradley, Eklutna, and Cooper Lakes.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The resources identified in this study would displace natural gas produced in the Cook Inlet basin.
This would decrease reliance on Cook Inlet gas, increasing the energy security of the railbelt
population.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 23 9/9/2010
Aside from increased reliability and security, energy customers would not notice any change in
electrical service. Over the long term, these projects would tend to decrease utility rates.
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
Most of the projects considered in this study would be run-or-river hydroelectric projects.
Some sites will likely be identified that are suitable for storage projects. These are
expected to be modest storage projects, with a few days or weeks of storage.
Total viable installed capacity identified in this study is estimated at 50 to 150 MW.
Capacity factor of these projects, in aggregate, is estimated at 50%.
Barriers will vary by project, but will generally include political and environmental issues
Standard integration (system interconnection) and delivery methods will be used.
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.
Land ownership will vary by project, and will be identified in the reconnaissance 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 analysis of permit issues for individual projects that advance to Stage 3
review.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 23 9/9/2010
Aviation considerations
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and discuss other potential barriers
This study will, to the extent justified by resource viability and funding levels, include analysis of
potential environmental impacts associated with projects that advance to Stage 3 review.
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 costs will vary by project and resource. For the purposes of this proposal, an aggregate unit
installed cost of $3,500 per kW has been assumed. Installed cost for individual projects would
likely range from $2,000 to $5,000 per kW. These estimates will be refined on a resource-
specific basis over the course of the 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.)
The reconnaissance study will provide preliminary O&M cost estimates. O&M costs of $0.015
per kWh are assumed.
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
Estimated cost-of-service fixed rates will be developed for resources that proceed to stage 3
review. These will be compared against projected future railbelt energy costs on a life cycle basis
in the final reconnaissance study report.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 23 9/9/2010
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 reconnaissance 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.
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.
This reconnaissance study will focus on technical, economic, environmental, and political viability
of identified small hydro resources. In-depth evaluation of business structures and concepts will
be outside the scope of this study. Certain business models and costs will be adopted as necessary
to complete economic analyses. These models and assumptions will be disclosed in the study.
Generally, it is expected that O&M costs of these projects would be financed from power sales
revenues. Funds for long-term O&M activities would be established to insure the long term
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 14 of 23 9/9/2010
financial health of the project. These and related financial management needs would be explored
in more detail in future studies if the outcome of the reconnaissance study is favorable.
Operational issues typical to run-of-river hydroelectric projects can be expected. Each project
could have specific issues unique to the resource.
Operational costs are estimated at $0.015 per kWh, and will vary by project. Costs of existing
generation systems would be handled by the railbelt utilities or their successor(s).
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.
In our role as small hydro consulting engineers and as small hydro developers, the engineers at
Polarconsult have informally and incrementally reviewed a number of small hydro resources in
the southern railbelt. This study will provide the public with a formal and comprehensive
assessment of the magnitude and value of the small hydro resource to southcentral Alaska.
Our past efforts in the region are far from comprehensive, but do provide us with considerable
familiarity with the nature and magnitude of the small hydro resource in this region. As such, we
are well-situated to conduct this study at lower cost and greater quality than others. Polarconsult
will combine our existing information, the limited coverage of small hydro in previous studies
(such as past studies by the U.S Corps of Engineers, databases compiled by AEA, and previous
studies funded by the RE program) and the proposed new assessment effort to provide the
proposed comprehensive reconnaissance study of the region.
Polarconsult is poised to commence work on this project immediately upon receipt of funds in FY
2011. The study is schedule to be completed by the end of 2012.
No other funds have been awarded for this project. Polarconsult has received a variety of other
grants for other purposes in the past, and has successfully managed these grant-funded projects.
We also regularly provide grant support services for our clients, which include businesses,
municipalities, and organizations throughout Alaska.
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 generally support evaluation of potentially economically viable renewable
resources to add to the railbelt generation portfolio.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 15 of 23 9/9/2010
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
Grant Funds: $1,375,000
Matching Funds and In-Kind: $ 80,000
Reconnaissance Total: $1,455,000
Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
Grant Application
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA 11-005 Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010
ATTACHMENT B – COST WORKSHEET
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-21-10
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. 50% capacity factor (estimate)
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 -- RAILBELT --
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other
iii. Generator/boilers/other type
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh]
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal]
Other
iii. Peak Load
iv. Average Load
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
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 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 7-21-10
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]
50 MW estimated installed capacity – run-of-river hydro
50% capacity factor
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 220,000,000 kWh/yr (estimate)
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
iv. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $160,000,000 (est.)
b) Development cost $15,000,000 (est.)
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $3,300,000 (est.)
d) Annual fuel cost zero
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 220,000,000 kWh/yr
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel Per AEA 2010 model for southern railbelt.
c) Other economic benefits Included in future fuel cost projections.
d) Alaska public benefits $302,860,000
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale AEA 2010 model for southern railbelt. ($0.065/kWh in 2014)
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio With 50 year life, $151.2M / $302.9M = 2.00
Payback (years) $151.2M / $12.5M = 12.1 years
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010
ATTACHMENT C – GRANT BUDGET FORM
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IVGrant Budget Form9/10/2010 Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance StudyRE- Fund Grantee MatchingSource of Matching Funds: Grant Funds FundsCash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/OtherProject Administration and Management (Contracting) 7/31/2011 $58,200 $0$58,200Complete Stage 1 Resource Review 12/31/2011 $466,000 $0$466,000Complete Stage 2 Resource Review 4/30/2012 $481,000 $0$481,000Complete Stage 3 Resource Review 9/30/2012 $310,800 $75,000 In-Kind Services $385,800Final Report and Recommendations 12/31/2012 $59,000 $5,000$64,000TOTALS$1,375,000$80,000$1,455,000Direct Labor & Benefits$1,175,000 $0$1,175,000Travel & Per Diem$0 $0$0Equipment$0 $80,000 In-Kind Services $80,000Materials & Supplies$0 $0$0Contractual Services$200,000 $0$200,000Construction Services$0 $0$0Other$0 $0$0 TOTALS$1,375,000$80,000$1,455,000TASK TOTALSBudget Categories:Milestone or TaskAnticipated Completion Date
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010
ATTACHMENT D – LOCAL SUPPORT
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010
ATTACHMENT E – ELECTRONIC COPY OF APPLICATION
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010
ATTACHMENT F – AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
Southern Railbelt Regional Small Hydro Reconnaissance Study
AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010
ATTACHMENT G – GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION