HomeMy WebLinkAboutGlacier ForkGrant App
G LACIER F ORK H YDROELECTRIC P ROJECT
AEA-11-005 R ENEWABLE E NERGY G RANT A PPLICATION
R OUND IV – FY 2012
S EPTEMBER 15, 2010
By
GLACIER FORK HYDROPOWER, LLC
1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE, SUITE 211A
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SECTION 1: APPLICANT INFORMATION...........................................................................2
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT.................................................................................................2
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................2
2.0 SECTION 2: PROJECT SUMMARY.........................................................................................3
2.1 PROJECT TITLE .............................................................................................................................3
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION .....................................................................................................................3
2.3 PROJECT TYPE ..............................................................................................................................3
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................3
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT .........................................................................................................................4
2.5.1 Direct Economic Benefits........................................................................................................4
2.5.2 Indirect Public Benefits...........................................................................................................4
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................4
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY....................................................................................................4
3.0 SECTION 3: PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................5
3.1 PROJECT MANAGER .....................................................................................................................5
3.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE .....................................................................................................................5
3.3 PROJECT MILESTONES .................................................................................................................5
3.4 PROJECT RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................6
3.5 PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................................................................6
3.6 PROJECT RISK ...............................................................................................................................6
4.0 SECTION 4: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS.........................................................7
4.1 PROPOSED ENERGY RESOURCE ...................................................................................................7
4.2 EXISTING ENERGY SYSTEM ..........................................................................................................8
4.2.1 Basic Configuration of Existing Energy System.....................................................................8
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used ............................................................................................8
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market..........................................................................................................9
4.3 PROPOSED SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................9
4.3.1 System Design.........................................................................................................................9
4.3.2 Land Ownership....................................................................................................................10
4.3.3 Permits..................................................................................................................................11
4.3.4 Environmental.......................................................................................................................11
4.4 PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM COSTS (TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROPOSED REVENUES)......12
4.4.1 Project Development Cost....................................................................................................12
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs...........................................................................13
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale.............................................................................................................13
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet......................................................................................................................13
5.0 SECTION 5: PROJECT BENEFIT............................................................................................15
5.1 ESTIMATED FUEL DISPLACEMENT.............................................................................................15
5.2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE ................................................................................................15
5.3 OTHER ANNUAL REVENUE STREAMS .......................................................................................15
5.4 PROJECT BENEFIT FROM DIRECT COST SAVINGS ......................................................................15
6.0 SECTION 6: SUSTAINABILITY.............................................................................................16
7.0 SECTION 7: READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS........................17
8.0 SECTION 8: LOCAL SUPPORT..............................................................................................17
9.0 SECTION 9: GRANT BUDGET..............................................................................................17
10.0 SECTION 10: ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION..............18
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 2
1.0 SECTION 1: APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name Glacier Fork Hydro, LLC
Type of Entity: Utility 1
Mailing/Physical Address 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 211A
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone 258-2420
Fax 258-2419
Email joel@polarconsult.net
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name Joel Groves, PE
Title: Project Manager
Mailing Address 1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 211A
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone 258-2420
Fax 258-2419
Email joel@polarconsult.net
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
X 1 An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
X 1 An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695, or
A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Endorsements
Yes Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its board of
directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If a collaborative grouping, a
formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary.
Yes 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 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 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the
benefit of the general public.
1 GFH anticipates that it will become a regulated utility if the project is completed. GFH does not plan
to file for utility status until the project is more advanced.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 3
2.0 SECTION 2: PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
"GLACIER FORK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT"
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located on the Glacier Fork of the Knik River in southcentral Alaska about 20
miles east of the Eklutna Hydroelectric Powerhouse and 25 miles southeast of Palmer. It is
located within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with portions of the reservoir located within
the Municipality of Anchorage and within unorganized lands. The project is generally located
at latitude 61 26' north and longitude 148 30' west. The project is located within sections 34,
35, 36 of township 16 north, range 5 east, Seward Meridian. The project reservoir would be
located in section 1 of township 15 north, range 5 east, and sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of township 15
north, range 6 east.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
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
The Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project is an approximately 75 MW storage project proposed for
the Glacier Fork of the Knik River. Electricity from the project would be delivered into the
railbelt transmission grid via a new approximately 20-mile transmission line to existing
transmission infrastructure in the vicinity of the Old Glenn Highway bridge over the Knik
River. A map of the project is included at the end of the application in Attachment I.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 4
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
2.5.1 Direct Economic Benefits
1. Total direct economic benefits annually: $20,378,000
2.5.2 Indirect Public Benefits
1. Increased reliability and stability of the local power grid. Also, increased diversity of
fuel sources for the railbelt grid.
2. Reduced demand for Cook Inlet natural gas. This project will offset natural-gas fired
power generation, reducing natural gas consumption and incrementally extending the
life of the Cook Inlet gas fields, to the benefit of the public that relies upon these fields
for electricity and space heating needs.
3. The creation of local jobs and economic benefit. A significant portion of the project
funding will go to local firms and will create local jobs.
4. Promote economic and recreational development of southcentral Alaska. The project
would extend power and road access up the Knik River valley, enabling economic
development of this area. The project would also extend road access into new alpine
areas of the Chugach Mountains, introducing the possibility of new readily accessible
areas for recreational and tourism-related activities.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
$210,000 is requested for a project reconnaissance study, with local matching funds of $40,000
for a total budget of $250,000.
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY
Grant Costs
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 210,000
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 40,000
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $ 250,000
Project benefits are summarized below.
2.7.4 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet
including estimates through construction) $370,000,000
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $476,700,000
2.7.6 Other Public Benefit See Narrative
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 5
3.0 SECTION 3: PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.1 PROJECT MANAGER
The Project Manager is Joel D. Groves, PE. Mr. Groves has considerable experience evaluating,
designing, permitting, and operating hydroelectric projects similar to the proposed project
throughout Alaska. Resumes and references for Mr. Groves and other GFH Members are
attached to this proposal.
GFH requests assistance from AEA in coordinating the organizational integration of the Glacier
Fork Project with the railbelt utilities and the proposed GRETC integration of the railbelt
generation and transmission functions.
3.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE
Primary efforts to date have focused on project reconnaissance, and formulating preliminary
opinions on the technical, regulatory, and economic viability of the project. GFH has secured a
FERC Preliminary Permit for the Glacier Fork project. Reconnaissance activities are required to
advance the project. The proposed project schedule follows.
Year Activity
Hydrology
Surveys
Public Process
Reconnaissance study
Feasibility study
FERC permitting and licensing
Resource studies
Design studies
Project design
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
Obtain permits, land, easements, right of ways
2015, 2016 Project Construction
3.3 PROJECT MILESTONES
Key milestones for this grant proposal are listed below.
Reconnaissance Milestone Scheduled Completion
Contractor Solicitation July 2011
Hydrology and geology study July 2012
Identify land use, permitting, and environmental issues July 2012
Preliminary design analysis and cost estimate August 2012
Cost of energy and market analysis August 2012
Simple economic analysis August 2012
Final report and recommendations September 2012
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 6
Key project milestones are summarized in the table below.
Milestone Scheduled Completion
Reconnaissance Study Report Fall 2012
Feasibility Study Report and Determination Spring 2013
Agency Approved Resource Study Plan Fall 2013
FERC License, Agency Permits Fall 2013
Construction Bid Process Winter 2013/2014
Project Construction 2015-2016
Project Commissioning End of 2016
3.4 PROJECT RESOURCES
GFH members will provide the technical expertise, hydropower engineering knowledge, and
direct hydro project operational experience to perform all aspects of developing the Glacier
Fork project. As appropriate, GFH will retain subcontractors to execute specific tasks to
advance the project.
CEA’s resource commitment depends upon the business relationship to be developed with
GFH and the State’s approval of the requested grant funds in this application for project
development.
Polarconsult and CEA anticipate that business relationships pertaining to development and
ownership of the project will depend on the outcome of ongoing efforts to integrate regional
utilities generation planning and operational functions.
3.5 PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS
GFH will keep AEA informed of project status through the issuance of monthly or quarterly
project status reports as warranted. The reports will include a brief (1 page) report including a
narrative of current project status, activities in the current month, any problems encountered,
and the anticipated activities in following months. The report will also include a budget status
summary.
As warranted, GFH may also advise the AEA grant manager of upcoming events such as field
visits or other activities of specific interest on an as-needed basis.
3.6 PROJECT RISK
To date, study of the Glacier Fork resource has been limited to review of existing information.
Collection of field data is necessary to identify and evaluate project risks, and determine if
identified risks can be mitigated or may influence project viability. Generally, project risks
include:
Hydrological risk. The available water in the Glacier Fork could be different than indicated
by existing hydrology data. This risk will be mitigated through the development and
completion of a comprehensive hydrology study that will determine the water availability
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 7
at this resource to a high level of confidence. The project size will be adjusted as required
in the feasibility phase to optimally utilize the available water.
Geotechnical risk. Geotechnical conditions at the proposed dam site, tunnel alignment, or
at other locations on the project may present unanticipated engineering challenges. This is
primarily a cost/feasibility risk. Field work will identify those geotechnical conditions that
require special attention, and these will addressed during the design phase.
Environmental risk. Existing information indicates that the Glacier Fork is not an
anadromous river, and that the upper Glacier Fork canyon and other areas that will be
inundated by the reservoir are not significant or important habitat for any listed species or
game in general. Field studies will be performed to confirm these initial findings.
Permitting/Regulatory risk. The project is located within the Knik River Public Use Area.
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) published a management Plan for
this area earlier in 2008. This management plan has been reviewed, and the proposed
project is generally consistent with the plan.
Glacial risk. The project's footprint is located proximate to the Knik Glacier, and could be
affected by the glacier if the glacier were to advance into the project area. Such behavior is
not known to be in the historical record, but given the long design life of such a project,
appropriate field investigations will need to be undertaken in the feasibility phase to
evaluate any risks the glacier may pose to the project. These risks may be mitigated by
proper location of the project features.
Cost risk. Cost estimates and economics of the project will be considered at the
reconnaissance, feasibility, and design stages of the project to confirm that the project's
economics are favorable for the railbelt. By monitoring the projected costs in an orderly
manner as more information becomes available throughout the reconnaissance and
feasibility phases of the project, exposure to cost risk will be minimized.
4.0 SECTION 4: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
4.1 PROPOSED ENERGY RESOURCE
The proposed energy resource is the Glacier Fork of the Knik River. The Glacier Fork above the
proposed dam site drains 267 square miles of the Chugach Mountains northwest of Prince
William Sound, and is 23% by area of the total basin drained by the Knik River above the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage #15281000 located at the Old Glenn Highway bridge. As
the Glacier Fork approaches the Knik River, it passes through a canyon to the north of the Knik
Glacier, near Metal Creek. A dam would be built within this canyon, with a power tunnel /
penstock / tailrace diverting water west approximately 8,400 feet through a powerhouse and
discharging near the mouth of the Glacier Fork at the head of the Knik River flats. The project
would have a gross head of approximately 680 feet.
The Glacier Fork basin is the northerly and easterly portion of the Knik River basin. Based
upon the similar degree of glaciation in the Glacier Fork and Lake Fork basins of the Knik River,
the normalized runoff from each basin is believed to be similar. This assumption will be
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 8
validated by establishing a stream gauge and conducting a hydrology study for the Glacier
Fork.
USGS gauge #15281000 has a period of record from 1959 to current. Based upon this data and a
maximum design flow of 1,700 cubic feet per second (cfs), an average annual energy generation
of 330,000 MWh is estimated from the project.
Alternative energy resources available to this market include all alternatives available to the
railbelt energy grid, which principally include: natural gas, diesel/oil, coal, storage hydro, run-
of-river hydro, hydrokinetic/tidal, wind and geothermal.
Overall, this project appears competitive with existing generation costs on the railbelt and has
the potential to lower railbelt energy costs. In the long term, this project offers the potential to
significantly lower energy costs for railbelt rate payers.
4.2 EXISTING ENERGY SYSTEM
4.2.1 Basic Configuration of Existing Energy System
The project would interconnect with the railbelt transmission grid in the vicinity of the 115 kV
transmission line at the Old Glenn Highway bridge over the Knik River. From there, power
would be directed either west to the Eklutna Powerhouse over this existing line, and then via a
double transmission circuit to Anchorage and beyond to the Kenai Peninsula; or north to serve
the loads in the Mat-Su valley and beyond to Fairbanks.
The energy and capacity offered by the Glacier Fork project would be managed in concert with
other existing and future generation resources on the railbelt.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
The southern railbelt generally relies upon a combination of natural gas turbines and
hydroelectric power to generate electricity. Currently, natural gas combustion accounts for
approximately 85-90% of total energy projection, and the balance is from hydroelectric projects.
The Glacier Fork project will provide local utilities considerably increased flexibility to more
efficiently operate their generation assets to meet system loads and spinning reserve
requirements. At up to a 75 MW installed capacity, the Glacier Fork Reservoir provides
sufficient water storage for approximately five to seven days of electrical generation at full
capacity. During the summer months, the Glacier Fork project is capable of continuous output
at its installed capacity and could be used for base load generation. During the winter months,
the Glacier Fork project could be used for one or more of the following functions:
Providing base load at a much lower level (approximately 5 to 7 MW continuous
generation),
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 9
Daily peak shaving at up to its rated capacity, reducing the need for utilities to use lower
efficiency 'peaking' natural gas turbines.
Providing spinning reserve up to the rated capacity of the project, reducing the need for
utilities to burn natural gas to provide spinning reserve.
Operation in a coordinated manner with other hydroelectric resources to more optimally
utilize water storage at the Eklutna Lake, Cooper Lake, and Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Projects.
Provide at least 30 to 40 MW of continuous energy for up to two weeks, such as during a
cold snap. This would decrease natural gas demand during the cold snap, helping to
alleviate the natural gas deliverability issues that will be increasingly problematic until a
long term gas supply solution is implemented for the region.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
The project's electricity would be most readily marketed to MEA, ML&P, and/or CEA, which all
own transmission capacity originating at the Eklutna Powerhouse. More generally, the existing
energy market includes the six railbelt utilities, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA),
Chugach Electric Association, Seward Electric System (SES), Homer Electric Association (HEA),
Municipal Light & Power (ML&P), and Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA). Various
power sales contracts and transmission capacity bottlenecks limit the extent to which GFH
electricity could be freely marketed to some of these utilities.
4.3 PROPOSED SYSTEM
4.3.1 System Design
The Project will consist of a dam, intake structure, power tunnel or penstock, powerhouse,
transmission line, and associated facilities. Detailed descriptions of these components follow.
The dam will be located in the upper Glacier Fork Canyon, and will be approximately 430
feet tall and is of undetermined construction at this time. The dam will have a spillway
elevation at approximately 980 feet. There will be an associated intake structure to collect
up to 1700 cfs of water from the reservoir.
The dam will create a reservoir in the Glacier Fork Canyon and lower Grasshopper Valley.
The reservoir will extend approximately 5 miles up the Glacier Fork and have a maximum
surface area of 390 acres. The reservoir will have approximately 75,000 acre-feet of total
storage, with approximately 17,000 acre-feet for normal power generation operations.
Water will be transported from the intake structure via a 12 to 15-foot diameter 8,400-foot
long combination power tunnel-penstock, with surge tanks and appurtenant facilities as
required to the powerhouse. Exact routing, lengths and configuration of the power tunnel
and penstock will be determined during the feasibility, field investigation, and design
phases of the project.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 10
An alternate water conveyance configuration would have a shorter power tunnel to a
subterranean powerhouse near the dam and a tailrace tunnel to the Knik River flats. A
separate tunnel would be driven to the powerhouse for ventilation and access. This
configuration would improve the hydraulic responsiveness of the project, allowing the
project to provide spinning reserve with superior water efficiency. This configuration may
be preferable if the project is intended to provide spinning reserve to back up variable
renewable energy loads such as wind turbines.
The powerhouse will be located at approximately the 300 foot elevation near the mouth of
the Glacier Fork Canyon, where it emerges onto the Knik River flats. A tailrace will return
waters to the Glacier Fork approximately 7 river miles downstream from the dam site. The
size of the powerhouse and the type and number of turbine-generator sets to be installed
will be determined during the later phases of the project.
Electricity generated by the project will be transmitted to southcentral markets via a new
approximately 20-mile long transmission line constructed for this project. The transmission
line will generally travel along the Knik River flats and connect to the existing 115-kV line
near the Old Glenn Highway at the bridge over the Knik River. From there, existing
transmission lines will deliver project electricity to railbelt energy markets. The specific
alignment for this new transmission line has not yet been determined.
The project will be accessed by a road to be constructed up to the project site from existing
roads in the area. The starting point and route of the access road have not been determined.
The road and transmission line are expected to follow the same alignment in order to
simplify property acquisition and maintenance of the transmission line.
Based on available information, the gross head of the project is approximately 680 feet, and the
design flow is 1700 cubic feet per second (cfs). The project is estimated to have an installed
capacity of 75 MW and an annual average energy generation of approximately 330,000 MWh.
This capacity and energy would give the project a capacity factor of 0.52. Hydrology and
feasibility studies will confirm the optimal installed capacity and annual energy generation.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
The project works and reservoir are located entirely on lands owned by the State of Alaska and
within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. A small portion of the reservoir is located within the
Municipality of Anchorage. Three privately held parcels and two mining claims are located in
the lower Glacier Fork Canyon in the general vicinity of the powerhouse.
The transmission and access routes to the project have not been determined, but would likely
cross lands under federal, state or private ownership. A major landholder in the area is
Eklutna, Inc. the ANSCA village corporation for the village of Eklutna. The project is located
within the limits of the Knik River Public Use Area.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 11
4.3.3 Permits
The project boundary does not include any lands designated or recommended for designation
as wilderness area or wilderness study area; or any waters included in, designated for study, or
designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Major permits and approvals required for the project are listed below.
Water Use Permit / Water Rights (ADNR)
Land Lease/easement/purchase (BLM, ADNR, and/or private land owners)
Fish Habitat Permit (ADFG)
Army Corps of Engineers permits
Utility certification (RCA)
License for Major Hydropower Project (FERC)
Archeological consultation (SHPO)
Mat-Su Borough Building Permits
4.3.4 Environmental
Based upon review of available environmental data, there are no major environmental conflicts
identified for this project. Primary environmental considerations and assessments based upon
known information are listed below.
Fish Habitat. The Atlas of Waters Important to the Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of
Anadromous Fishes, maintained by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG),
identifies the Knik River below the project as anadromous fish habitat, but does not identify
any of the Glacier Fork as anadromous fish habitat. It is likely that there is a barrier to
anadromous fish in the lower canyon. The 2008 Knik River Public Use Area Management Plan
states that habitat for resident fish 'may occur' in the Glacier Fork.
Even if the reservoir, dam, and dewatered reach of the Glacier Fork is not fish habitat, the
project has the potential to affect fish habitat by altering the thermal regime of waters
downstream of the project. Adverse thermal affects can be avoided through proper design
of the intake structure. By enabling the project to selectively draw water from various
depths within the reservoir, the project can modulate the tailrace temperature to emulate or
enhance natural conditions. The Glacier Fork accounts for approximately 23% of the total
flow in the Knik River. Waters from the project will combine with the natural flows from
Metal Creek and the Lake Fork Knik River.
Game Habitat. The most significant project component likely to affect game habitat is the
reservoir. Most of the area inundated by the reservoir is steep canyon walls below 1000 feet
elevation, which is not expected to be prime habitat for game. The upper part of the
reservoir will inundate the very lower portion of the Grasshopper Valley. The 2008 Knik
River Public Use Area Management Plan characterized the valley floor as 'sparsely vegetated',
and identifies it as habitat for moose, bear, and various small game.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 12
Threatened or Endangered Species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Guide indicates no
threatened or endangered species in the project vicinity.
Aesthetics. Public use of the area where the project works would be located is primarily
recreation and hunting. According to the Knik River Public Use Area Management Plan, there
is limited commercial recreation currently using the project area. The dam and reservoir
would be the most significant aesthetic changes caused by the project. The reservoir would
present a new recreational opportunity, potentially offering similar aquatic recreational
opportunities as Eklutna Lake. The penstock and powerhouse would have comparatively
minor aesthetic affects, being visible from a variety of vantage points in the area.
The project's most significant aesthetic effect is expected to be the transmission lines
connecting the project to the existing transmission grid. These lines would generally follow
the Knik River from the project to the vicinity of the Old Glenn Highway bridge, either on
or near the river flats, or on the hillsides to the north or south of the flats. The lines would
generally be visible to the public in this area, and would generally be similar in appearance
and scale to existing transmission lines below the Old Glenn Highway Bridge.
Based on the scale of the project, some wetlands fill is certain. The quantity of wetlands that
will be filled by the project will not be known until specific alignments and locations for the
various project features have been selected and inventoried for wetlands. Any required
wetlands fill would be completed under a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
No archeological or cultural resources are known to be in the project vicinity. SHPO will be
consulted during the course of the project.
The project is located within DNR's 2008 Knik River Public Use Area Management Plan. The
project is consistent with the Plan's designated management objectives for the area, which are:
Manage for low levels of public use and enhanced recreational opportunities.
Manage to provide the full spectrum of public uses, while mitigating impacts to habitats
for fish and wildlife.
Develop a single multiple use trail into Grasshopper Valley. The project access road
may be suitable for use as this access trail.
Telecommunications Interference. None.
Aviation Considerations. None.
4.4 PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM COSTS (TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROPOSED REVENUES)
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Due to the magnitude of the project and the limited available technical data on the project site
and resource, a detailed cost estimate to develop the Glacier Fork project is premature. Based
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 13
on available data, a likely capital cost for the project works would be in the range of $260 to
$500 million. This grant application uses a total development cost of $370 million.
The budget for the reconnaissance phase of the project is $250,000, comprised of a $210,000
grant and $40,000 applicant match as in-kind services.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
It is premature to provide detailed estimates for project operation and maintenance costs, but
such costs would likely be similar to the O&M costs for the nearby Eklutna Hydroelectric
Project. Adjusting Eklutna costs to the Glacier Fork project on an installed-capacity basis results
in an estimated O&M budget of approximately $5 million annually. This budget would include
routine O&M activities and also less frequent activities such as equipment overhauls.
No grant funding is requested for operations and maintenance costs.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The energy and capacity from the project would be sold to railbelt utilities. Power sales
negotiations have not been initiated at this time. Generally, power sales could be structured on
an avoided-cost basis, fixed-price basis or on a variable cost-of-service basis. Other mechanisms
are also possible. More study of the project's integration with the utilities’ existing and future
operations would be necessary to determine the appropriate pricing structure for electricity
from this project.
Current projections are for the avoided cost of energy on the southern railbelt to run in the
range of 5 to 13 cents/kWh over the next 30 years.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
A preliminary economic feasibility analysis using an average annual energy production of
330,000 MWh, state grants for 50% of the $370 million total project cost, project financing at 5%
on a 30-year note, and a 10% profit margin indicates that the project could provide energy at a
break-even cost of approximately $0.05 to 0.06/kWh. This is competitive with the expected long
term cost of energy from natural gas-fired generation on the railbelt grid.
The specific assumptions used in completing the attached AEA cost worksheet are summarized
below.
Sections 1 & 3. Resource availability, installed capacity, plant capacity factor, and annual
energy generation are based upon hydrology for the project estimated from the Knik
River USGS stream gage #15281000.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 14
Section 4. – Project capital, development, and O&M costs are opinions of probable cost
based upon available information and estimates. These values would be refined as part
of the feasibility study phase of project development.
Section 5. – Project Benefits. The amount of fuel displaced is based upon the estimated
annual energy generation, and an estimated future net heat rate for the natural gas fired
generation the project would offset. Project benefits are also calculated at a
reconnaissance level. Benefits have been calculated assuming that capacity value will be
a direct public benefit, and revenue from energy sales will be used to pay the projects
debt service, O&M, and other costs. Depending on the eventual business structure,
project participants, and other factors, public benefit may be achieved by other means.
See section 5 for a more detailed explanation of these assumptions.
Section 6. – Power Purchase Price. A long term energy purchase price of $0.055/kWh is
the preliminary estimate used for this project.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 15
5.0 SECTION 5: PROJECT BENEFIT
5.1 ESTIMATED FUEL DISPLACEMENT
The project would primarily displace Cook Inlet natural gas burned for power generation.
Estimated fuel displacement and assumptions used to generate the estimates are summarized
below:
Fuel Type Natural Gas
Annual Displaced Energy 331,982 MWh
Displacement 100%
Efficiency of Displaced Generation (Heat Rate) 8,500 btu/kWh
Average Annual Displaced Fuel 2.8 BCF
Displaced Fuel over 50 Years 141 BCF
Average Market Value of Displaced Fuel $9.00/MCF
Annual Value of Displaced Fuel $25,400,000
Inflation Rate 2%
Discount Rate 5%
Present Value of Displaced Fuel over 50 years $653,500,000
5.2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE
Estimated annual revenue from power sales and assumptions used to generate the estimates are
summarized below:
Contract Item Proposed Terms
Contract price structure Cost of Service
Average avoided cost over 50 years (Energy Rate) $71/MWh
Average Annual Energy Sales 331,982 MWh
Average Annual Gross Revenue From Power Sales $23,570,000
Average Annual Operating Expenses $21,000,000
Average Annual Net Revenue (before taxes, depreciation, etc.) $2,570,000
5.3 OTHER ANNUAL REVENUE STREAMS
State or federal tax credits may be available to the project over its life. Currently available
federal tax credits for renewable energy have very limited eligibility criteria for hydroelectricity,
and this project is not expected to qualify. Generally, the volatility in tax credit rules and
eligibility precludes forecasting any benefit from them over the project’s life. The project
ownership structure may also affect eligibility for tax credits.
5.4 PROJECT BENEFIT FROM DIRECT COST SAVINGS
The following direct cost savings would result from this project.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 16
Green Tag / Renewable Energy Credits (RECs): The project may qualify for RECs.
RECs currently market in Alaska for $0.02/kWh (Denali Green Tags). The federal or
state government may enact new laws such as carbon taxes or renewable portfolio
standards that local utilities could be required to comply with. The renewable energy
from this project would not have any carbon emissions, potentially enabling the
purchasing utility/utilities to reduce the quantity of RECs or other carbon trading
instruments they could be required to purchase under any new federal or state
programs. The value of these RECs is considered to be part of the public benefit from
the project.
The project would provide significant capacity and energy value to the purchasing
utility or utilities. The requested grant funding level would enable GFH to pass on a
combined capacity/energy discount of approximately $0.02/kWh to the purchasing
utility, which would be a direct pass-through savings to the ratepayers and the public in
general.
Line Efficiency: By positioning generation closer to existing demand centers, it is
expected that the project would generally increase the efficiency of the region’s
transmission system. Increased efficiency would likely be observed on the CEA, MEA,
and ML&P systems to varying degrees. This would reduce costs for all three local
utilities.
Annual Property Tax Revenue: The Mat-Su Borough will likely levy property taxes on
the project over the life of the project, although the project’s tax status and tax rate
would depend upon the business structure and tax status of the project owners. Annual
property tax payments will contribute to the tax base and economic activity in the
Borough.
A capital financing term of 50 years is assumed, but the project’s design life would be in
excess of 100 years. After 50 years, the public would enjoy considerable benefits from
the project beyond 50 years. An example of these benefits is the Eklutna Lake
Hydroelectric Project, which provides energy to CEA, MEA, and ML&P for under
$0.005 per kWh – compared to prevailing energy rates of $0.05 to 0.08 per kWh.
6.0 SECTION 6: SUSTAINABILITY
Over 100 years of experience in Alaska have proven hydroelectric projects to be the most
sustainable power generation technology and investment available. No other generation
technology has come close to having the historical longevity and the future potential of
hydroelectric projects. Once the hurdle of the initial capital cost is overcome, the projects are
successfully maintained and renewed by all classes of communities in Alaska.
The utility industry in Southcentral Alaska has continuously operated hydroelectric projects
since the old Eklutna project was built in the 1930s. The utilities have the experience, capability,
and resources to operate Glacier Fork in perpetuity.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 17
Additionally, GFH members have operated the railbelt's fourth grid tied hydro – the 100-kW
McRobert's Creek Hydro – for nearly 20 years.
Annual O,M,R & R costs for the project will be funded by project revenues. In the design phase,
a financial management plan will be developed to project long term cash flow requirements for
project operations. This plan may include the following elements:
An operating fund to pay for routine operating, maintenance, repair and replacement
costs on a sustainable basis from annual project revenues. The operating fund may be
designed to provide adequate cash reserves for annual cash flow fluctuations and also
for low water years and other causes of revenue volatility.
Dedicated sinking fund(s) for certain large infrequent expenses, such as turbine
overhauls.
Contingency funds, lines of credit, and/or insurance policies to cover expenses from
infrequent events, such as floods or natural disasters.
GFH commits to reporting savings and benefits from the project for the project's economic life,
or shorter period as desired by the Alaska Energy Authority and its successor agencies.
7.0 SECTION 7: READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
GFH has already demonstrated its commitment to this project by completing the initial
investigations necessary to create the estimates provided in this proposal. Our on-going efforts
working with CEA and other stakeholders to determine the value and utility of this project to
the railbelt's long term generation needs also demonstrate our commitment to this project.
GFH is ready to advance the Glacier Fork project when the region's stakeholders are ready to
commit to studying it.
No other grants have been awarded for this project.
8.0 SECTION 8: LOCAL SUPPORT
As with any project of this scale, some people and organizations will support it, and others will
oppose it. Specific opposition to the project is unknown at this time.
GFH is already working with CEA on this project. GFH intends to engage other southcentral
utilities to determine their level of support for the project.
9.0 SECTION 9: GRANT BUDGET
GFH is requesting $210,000 in grant funds, with $40,000 in matching funds, for a total budget of
$250,000.
The Grant Budget Form is included in Attachment C.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 1
A. 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.
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 2
ATTACHMENT B – COST WORKSHEET
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 9-15-10
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. 330,000,000 kWh
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 NA
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 -
3. Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
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 9-15-10
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
75 MW hydro with 52% capacity factor as ROR project
and 5-7 days of reservoir storage at full output.
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 330,000,000 kWh
ii. Heat [MMBtu] -
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] -
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] -
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] -
iv. Other -
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $370,000,000
b) Development cost $5,000,000
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $4,950,000
d) Annual fuel cost zero
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 2.8 BCF of natural gas per year
ii. Heat -
iii. Transportation -
b) Current price of displaced fuel Approx $5.00 per MCF (current 2010)
8.76 per MCF (AEA estimate for 2017)
c) Other economic benefits Reduced Carbon Emissions, Capacity, etc.
d) Alaska public benefits New recreational opportunities, stable energy prices, etc.
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale Estimated at 8 to 9 cents per kWh.
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio $411.6M / $314.8M = 1.3
Payback (years) $314.8M / $17.1M = 18.4 years
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 3
ATTACHMENT C – GRANT BUDGET FORM
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IVGrant Budget Form9/14/2010 Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project - ReconnaissanceRE- Fund Grantee Matching Source of Matching Funds: Grant Funds FundsCash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other1. Contractor Solicitation & Project Management 8/1/2011 $0 $10,000 In-Kind Services $10,0002. Hydrology & Geological Reconnaissance Studies 8/1/2012 $95,000 $5,000 In-Kind Services $100,0003. Identify Land Use, Permitting, and Environmental Issues 8/1/2012 $15,000 $5,000 In-Kind Services $20,0004. Preliminary Design Analysis & Cost Estimate, Market Analysis, Economic Analysis9/1/2012 $40,000 $10,000 In-Kind Services $50,0005. Work with Stakeholders to Advance Project Plan 9/1/2012 $15,000 $5,000 In-Kind Services $20,0005. Final Report & Recommendations 12/31/2013 $45,000 $5,000 In-Kind Services $50,000TOTALS$210,000 $40,000$250,000Direct Labor & Benefits$0 $34,000 In-Kind Services $34,000Travel & Per Diem$0 $500 In-Kind Services $500Equipment$0 $5,000 In-Kind Services $5,000Materials & Supplies$0 $500 In-Kind Services $500Contractual Services$210,000 $0$210,000Construction Services$0 $0$0Other$0 $0$0 TOTALS$210,000 $40,000$250,000TASK TOTALSBudget Categories:Milestone or TaskAnticipated Completion Date
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 4
ATTACHMENT D – LOCAL SUPPORT
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 5
ATTACHMENT E – ELECTRONIC COPY OF APPLICATION
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 6
ATTACHMENT F – AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT G – GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
APPLICATION
Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 PAGE 8
ATTACHMENT I – MAPS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
THIS
PROJECT
STATE INDEX MAP
LOCATION MAP
LOCATION MAP
PROJECT
SITE