Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEklunta Hunter Creek Grant Application4 GRANT APPLICATION – FOR – HUNTER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 – SUBMITTED TO – ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM – ROUND IV RFA #AEA-11-005 – SUBMITTED BY – EKLUTNA, INC. 16515 CENTERFIELD DRIVE, SUITE 201 EAGLE RIVER, AK 99577 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 22 9/9/2010 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) EKLUTNA, INC. Type of Entity: ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATION Mailing Address 16515 CENTERFIELD DRIVE, SUITE 201 EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA 99577 Physical Address - SAME - Telephone 907-696-2828 Fax 907-696-2845 Email info@eklutnainc.com 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name JIM A. ARNESEN Title CORPORATE LANDS AND REGULATORY MANAGER Mailing Address 16515 CENTERFIELD DRIVE, SUITE 201 EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA 99577 Telephone 907-696-2828 Fax 907-696-2845 Email Jim@eklutnainc.com 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or X An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or A local government, or A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); YES 1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box ) YES 1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement. YES 1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) YES 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 22 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) Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project 2.2 Project Location – Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project. The project is located on Hunter Creek, a tributary of the Knik River. Refer to USGS quadrangle Anchorage B-5 for a map of the project location. A map is also included in Attachment I of this application. 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put X in boxes as appropriate 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type Wind Biomass or Biofuels X Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic Solar Storage of Renewable Other (Describe) 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) 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. The Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project is a potential hydroelectric resource in the Matanuska- Susitna Valley with an estimated installed capacity of 6.5 MW. This proposed reconnaissance study will investigate the resource to determine if a project is viable and to also perform preliminary feasibility work on the project location, size, and resource availability. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 22 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.) A reconnaissance study of the Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project will benefit the railbelt population by determining if a viable hydroelectric project can be constructed at Hunter Creek. In the near term, the public benefit is the cost to perform the study. If the project is viable and constructed, the public will benefit from competitively-priced clean renewable energy. 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. The cost of the reconnaissance study will be $100,000. Of this cost, Eklutna, Inc. will contribute $4,000 as in-kind services and $12,000 as a cash match. 2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below. Grant Costs (Summary of funds requested) 2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 84,000 2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 16,000 2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $ 100,000 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) $25,000,000 2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $44,430,000 2.7.6 Other Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in your application (Section 5.) Improve air quality, encourage local economic development, stabilize local energy costs. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 22 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. Jim Arnesen will be the project manager for Eklutna, Inc. Jim will be responsible for hiring and managing consultants, processing invoices, interfacing with the grant administrators, and insuring compliance with all grant conditions. 3.2 Project Schedule Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.) The reconnaissance study will take 14 months due to the need to collect approximately one year of hydrology data for Hunter Creek. The scheduled completion of major project tasks is summarized below. Contract with consultant to perform the study July 2011 Resource identification and analysis August 2012 Land use, permitting and environmental analysis July 2012 Preliminary design and cost analysis August 2012 Reconnaissance-level economic analysis August 2012 Final report and recommendations September 2012 3.3 Project Milestones Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.) The following milestones are proposed: RECONNAISSANCE Contract with consultant to perform the study Resource identification and analysis (stream gauging, site inspections) Land use, permitting and environmental analysis Preliminary design and cost analysis Reconnaissance-level economic analysis Final report and recommendations ADMINISTRATION Quarterly reports as required by AEA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 22 9/9/2010 3.4 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. Eklutna, Inc. plans to contract with Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. to perform the reconnaissance study work. Information about Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. is included in Attachment A. 3.5 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Jim Arnesen will be the primary point of communications. He will coordinate all efforts between AEA, Eklutna, and consultant(s). Mr. Arnesen will provide quarterly reports to AEA. 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 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 Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 22 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. A preliminary configuration for the Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project is presented below. This preliminary assessment will be refined in the reconnaissance study. Hunter Creek Data cross basin pipeline 13,000 ft main pipeline 8,000 ft West Basin area 35.4 sq mi East Basin area 23.3 sq mi Total basin area 58.6 sq mi transmission line - knik 11 mi Static Head 700 ft Cross Pipeline Diameter 36 in Flow 60 cfs Headloss 53 ft Main Pipeline Diameter (48")48 in Flow 160 cfs Max Headloss 56 ft Efficiency 75% Power 6,500 kW 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic Configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. This project is located on the southern railbelt – not applicable. 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. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 22 9/9/2010 This project is located on the southern railbelt. The southern railbelt predominantly relies on nature gas for electrical generation (approximately 90%) and hydroelectric power for the balance (approximately 10%). The local electric utility, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (MEA) has plans to install a new gas-fired power plant at Eklutna. Eklutna, Inc. has worked with MEA to provide a site for this new facility. MEA is considering installing a series of reciprocating engines with individual capacity of approximately 7 MW each. This project is expected to fit very well with MEA’s proposed generation plans as it would allow MEA to completely shut down one 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. 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. This project is located in MEA territory in the southern railbelt. MEA’s Board has adopted a policy of encouraging renewable energy development. The regional utilities also have a stated desire to diversify their generation assets, which this project would help achieve. This project would require the upgrade of approximately 11 miles of old, unreliable single phase distribution line along the south side of the Knik River. Replacing this line would improve reliability and quality of service to MEA’s customers in this area. Also, having this project on the MEA system would help to stabilize and lower energy prices for MEA customers. It would also decrease the utility’s exposure to carbon taxes and related environmental costs of relying on non-renewable hydrocarbon fuels for power generation. 4.3 Proposed System Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. 4.3.1 System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location Optimum installed capacity Anticipated capacity factor Anticipated annual generation Anticipated barriers Basic integration concept Delivery methods Run of the river hydroelectric project with two intakes, a penstock and pelton turbine(s). Preliminary estimated installed capacity: 6,500 kW. Preliminary estimated capacity factor: 58% Preliminary estimated annual generation: 34,100,000 kWh Anticipated barriers: None Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 22 9/9/2010 Integration concept: Switchgear will allow hydro to run in parallel with existing railbelt generation. Project would be dispatched by MEA or their designated integrated system operator (ISO). Delivery Method: New 3-ph distribution line to tie hydro powerhouse into existing 115 kV line at bridge over Knik River on Old Glenn Highway, or closer adequate existing distribution lines. This would replace the existing very old 1 ph line that causes MEA significant reliability and repair problems. The extent of line upgrades will be determined as part of the reconnaissance study. 4.3.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. Most of the land for the project is owned by Eklutna, Inc. This study will also evaluate other land ownership once project locations are evaluated. 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 and compliance requirements. 4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed: Threatened or Endangered species Habitat issues Wetlands and other protected areas Archaeological and historical resources Land development constraints Telecommunications interference Aviation considerations Visual, aesthetics impacts Identify and discuss other potential barriers This study will include analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the project. 4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues (Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards, Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates. 4.4.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 22 9/9/2010 the project. Cost information should include the following: Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase Requested grant funding Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind Identification of other funding sources Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system The reconnaissance study will provide preliminary cost estimates. The cost worksheet assumes a total development cost of about $3,850 per kW of installed capacity. 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the applicant. (Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the communities they serve.) The 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 The projected energy costs in AEA’s 2010 energy model and spreadsheet using the mid-range EIA energy forecasts for the southern railbelt are used as estimated power purchase rates. These start at $6.5 cents/kWh in 2014. 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. Download the form, complete it, and submit it as an attachment. Document any conditions or sources your numbers are based on here. The Cost Worksheet is attached at the end of this application. Projections and calculations are performed using AEA’s project evaluation spreadsheet. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 22 9/9/2010 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. Eklutna, Inc. will evaluate business structures and concepts during the reconnaissance study. A separate company (subsidiary) may be established for the project if the outcome of the reconnaissance study is favorable. Eklutna, Inc. is a sophisticated business that possesses the in- house expertise and outside resources necessary to manage the development and operation of this project. O&M costs of the project would be financed from power sales revenues. Funds for long-term O&M activities would be established to insure the long term financial health of the project. 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. No unusual issues are known at this time. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 22 9/9/2010 Operational costs are estimated at $0.015 per kWh, or $555,000 annually. This estimate will be refined in the reconnaissance study. Costs of existing generation systems would be handled by MEA. Eklutna, Inc. readily commits to reporting the savings and benefits this project would bring to the local community. SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants. Eklutna, Inc. has contacted Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. regarding the project and Polarconsult has agreed to contract for reconnaissance work. Work on this project can begin shortly after receipt of funds from AEA. No other funds have been awarded for this project. Eklutna Inc. has received a variety of other grants for other purposes in the past, and has successfully managed these grant-funded projects. SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPORT Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project. The railbelt utilities are generally in support of evaluating potentially economically viable renewable resources to add to the railbelt generation portfolio. SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much you want in grant funds Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant. Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form – GrantBudget3.doc Grant Funds: $84,000 Matching Funds and In-Kind: $16,000 Reconnaissance Total: $100,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round IV Grant Application Indian River Hydroelectric Project – Design and Permitting AEA 11-005 Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010 ATTACHMENT A – CONTACT INFORMATION AND RESUMES REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC 1 RECENT POLARCONSULT PROJECTS & PROJECT REFERENCES Polarconsult has extensive experience working on all aspects of hydroelectric development. From reconnaissance, feasibility, permitting, design, construction, inspection, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and retrofitting, Polarconsult’s professional staff understands all aspects of hydroelectric projects. Engineering budgets for past and current projects range from tens of thousands to over a million dollars. Polarconsult principals designed, built, own and operate the McRobert’s Creek Hydro, located near Palmer, Alaska. The many lessons learned from owning and operating our own hydroelectric project translates into valuable experience that pays off immensely for other projects. One of the biggest obstacles to proper operation of a hydroelectric facility is intake design. After numerous refinements, Polarconsult has designed and constructed an intake for the McRobert’s project that operates automatically and virtually maintenance free even when subje cted to the onslaught of debris brought about by floods and seasonal changes. Another successful project, located in Pelican, Alaska, involved designing a steel support system for an aging timber crib dam. Limited by helicopter access and narrow construct ion windows, the location required a design that not only withstood the large forces of floods but needed to be light enough and simple enough to be airlifted and quickly put into permanent place. Accurate surveying, 3-D design, and close coordination wit h the project owner all resulted in a unique and successful solution without an extravagant budget. The experience and knowledge that Polarconsult’s professionals bring to a project are exemplified by our work on the Kasidaya Creek hydroelectric project. Brought in by Alaska Power and Telephone due to excessive costs on a tunnel and intake for a project that was in the midst of construction, Polarconsult spent half a day in the field at the project site and provided valuable insight and advice that changed the course of the construction to reduce project costs and maintenance. Polarconsult’s recommendations to provide an access route up the creek to the intake site were ultimately adopted into the now completed project. All of Polarconsult’s core professionals have been involved in the numerous engineering challenges surrounding hydroelectric projects for many years. Any one of our professional engineers is more than capable of successfully identifying all the issues in a hydroelectric project and using our comprehensive background and knowledge to forge solutions that aren’t narrowly focused or short sighted. SELECTED PROJECT PROFILES Project: Pelican Dam Reinforcement and Penstock Design Client: Pelican Seafoods Reference Contact: Tom Whitmarsh, Pelican Seafoods, 907-735-2204 Engineering Budget: $175,000 Description The Pelican Hydroelectric Power Plant was first constructed around 1946 to supply water and power to the Pelican Seafoods Cannery constructed around the same time. A Dam Safety Review determined that there was potential for failure of the existing timber crib dam during flood stages. A field investigation was conducted to prepare an as-built of the existing timber crib dam, intake structure, timber flume, wood stave penstock, and power plant. A unique design was arrived at to shore up the existing dam to be stable under flood stages, and upgrade the existing intake to cut down head losses. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC 2 Additionally, Polarconsult recently completed a design for replacement of the original flume, surge tank, and elevated penstock. The design includes a new surge tank, new penstock, and modifications to the intake and dam wing walls. Project: Chignik Relicense Client: Trident Seafoods Reference Contact: Mike Duckworth, Trident Seafoods, 206-617-6612 Engineering Budget: $150,000 Description Included in a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) License are significant efforts and coordination relating to the development of the Environmental Assessment. Activities include: · National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) scoping meetings · Stream Gauging · Fish Surveys · Geomorphological surveys of Indian River including fish habitat analysis · Dissemination of all data and correspondence through the development of a Project web page and through traditional hard copy to over 50 particpants The entire relicensing process was completed under the “applicant prepared EA” process in less than 2 years (typically licensing time is 3 to 5 years). Project: Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Client: CRW Engineering Group, LLC Refer ence Contact: Lenny Landis, AEA, 440-9320 Engineering Budget: $16,000 Description Performed original design of 475 kW project with a gross head of 665 feet and a flow of 11 cfs. Subsequent work included site inspection and analysis of existing hydroelectric system with recommendations for upgrades to existing intake and penstock, addition of drainage diversion to increase water flow to plant for increased power production, and consulting on controls upgrades to interconnect hydro plant to community diesel generation plant. The work activities also included the following: · Analysis of hydrologic data to determine maximum potential power output on a monthly basis · Development of a parts list and the performance of ultrasonic thickness testing of the penstock in the powerhouse · Inspection of cracked turbine blades for hydroelectric plant · Recommendations for repair of turbine as appropriate to the City and AEA Project: Atka Hydro Client: Alaska Energy Authority and CRW Engineering Group, LLC. Reference Contact: Julie Dirks, City of Atka, 907-581-6226 Engineering Budget: $200,000 Description Designed the 270 kW hydroelectric facility in Atka that is currently under construction. Activities include the following: · Topographic surveying to layout project features and tie into known monuments · Development of legal descriptions based on survey data and final design for necessary easements REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC 3 · Investigation and description of anadromous fish affected by and in the project area (including fish habitat assessments and setting of fish traps to capture and identify species) · Design of 1,060 feet of 30-inch diameter High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) penstock · Design of a cable stayed bridge spanning 100 feet · Design of the 7.2/12.4 kV electrical cable connecting to the existing system · Design of the powerhouse · Specification of the turbine and generator · Design of the 13-foot-high impoundment dam Project: Fishhook Hydroelectric Project Client: Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC Engineering Budget: $125,000 Description Currently in the permitting phase, this project includes completion of a feasibility study, permitting, and design of 2.0 MW run-of-river hydroelectric plant located on Fishhook Creek in Hatcher Pass, Alaska. Performed surveying utilizing RTK GPS equipment and developed cost estimates and a feasibility study by the fall of 2006. Project: Kasidaya (Otter) Creek Intake Client: Alaska Power & Telephone Company Reference Contact: Vern Neitzer, AP&T, 907-983-2202 Engineering Budget: $15,000 Description Site Inspection and project review. Provided a brief letter report to assist AP&T in seeking a lower cost alternative for the intake and penstock tunnel that were in the original design. Project was well into construction at the time. Made recommendations on an alternative for a dam, intake configurations, access routes, and permitting actions. AP&T ultimately reconfigured the original design based on our recommendations. Project: Lace Hydro Client: Lace River Hydro Reference Contact: Bob Grimm, AP&T, 360-531-0320 Engineering Budget: $800,000 Description Currently in the FERC licensing phase, this project involves feasibility investigation, FERC permitting, and design of a 5 MW hydroplant in southeast Alaska. The Project intake is located at an unnamed lake that would be used for storage. The lake has a surface area of approximately 384 acres. The dam intake is located at an elevation of 3,180 feet. From the intake, there would be 7,600 feet of 21-inch diameter steel pipe leading to the powerhouse. The net hydraulic head is 3,000 feet. The project flow is estimated to be approximately 27 cfs. The total estimated energy production of this project is 34,164,000 Kilowatt hours. Power transmission would consist of 5 miles of 14.4/24.9 kV buried cable and 7.1 miles of overhead transmission lines. Project: McRobert's Creek Hydroelectric Project Client: Earle Ausman, Enerdyne Engineering Budget: $60,000 Description REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC 4 McRobert's Creek Hydroelectric Plant is an excellent example of how cost effective a small hydroelectric plant in Alaska can be. McRobert's Creek is located three miles to the east of Palmer and is fed by the rock glaciers that lay below Matanuska Peak. The mountainous and rugged terrain required PCA to use non-conventional construction techniques to complete the project. Due to the terrain it was not feasible or environmentally desirable to build a road to the power plant. The project was completed in an environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing manner. Hikers and horseback riders now use the trail for access to Matanuska Peak. The "run of the river" facility consists of a rock gabion diversion to funnel the water into a 4,200-foot, twelve-inch-diameter polyethylene pipeline. A 7,000-gallon storage tank is used to regulate the system so that a large dam and associated reservoir are not necessary. Other physical features include 8,800 feet of phone line, 4,600 feet of 7,200 kVA power cable, 8,600 feet of access trail, and a 12-foot by 12-foot concrete block powerhouse. The plant operates at 445 feet of gross head and runs year round delivering 100 kW to the Matanuska Electric Authority grid. The plant was designed and built by Polarconsult at a cost of $2,000 per kW. Polarconsult President Earle Ausman is the owner of the facility. Project: Southfork Hydro Plant Client: South Fork Construction Reference Contact: Phyllis Janke, South Fork Construction, 694-4351 Engineering Budget: $80,000 Description Currently under construction and permitting, this project involves feasibility, design, and per mitting of a 1.2 MW hydroplant on the south fork of Eagle River. The South Fork Hydro project is a run-of-river plant with a capacity of 1,200 kW. Scheduled to be completed in 2009, the project will use water from the South Fork of Eagle River which drains a 26-square-mile area. The project will divert 53 cfs from the South Fork. The elevation of the intake pool is 1,180 feet and the elevation of the draft tube pool where the turbines discharge is 803 feet for a gross head of 377 feet. The pipe will be 32-inch, SDR 32.5 high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE). About 3,175 feet from the intake, the pipe will change to SDR 26. This HDPE pipe continues for the next 175 feet where it transitions to 300 feet of 30-inch steel pipe. There will be four 300 kW turbine-generator sets. One turbine will be a Pelton wheel with 4 jets which will turn at 1200 rpm. The turbine will drive a 300 kW induction generator. This unit will be used to operate at all of the intermediate flows as it is an excellent partial load device. The other 3 units will be pump-turbines which are centrifugal pumps run as turbines. They will be vertical assemblies and will turn at 1800 rpm. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC 5 SELECTED PROJECT LIST In addition to the projects listed under Selected Project Profiles, Polarconsult has performed numerous feasibility studies and designs as the following list indicates. Job Name Client Year Knutson Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Pedro Bay Tribal Council 2009-10 Packer’s Creek Hydro Design and Permitting Chignik Lagoon Power Utility 2009-10 Burro Creek Hydro Study Burro Creek Holdings, LLC 2009-10 Old Harbor FERC Licensing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2009-10 Indian River Hydro Feasibility Study, Conceptual Design and Permitting City of Tenakee Springs 2009-10 Elfin Cove Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Community of Elfin Cove 2009-10 Pedro Bay Reconnaissance Study Pedro Bay Tribal Council 2009 Pelican Hydroelectric Upgrade Design Alaska Energy & Engineering, Inc. 2008-10 Fourth of July Creek Reconnaissance Study Independence Power, LLC 2008 Glacier Fork Hydro Reconnaissance Study Glacier Fork Hydro, LLC 2008 Pelican Hydroelectric Retrofit Alaska Energy Authority 2007 Archangel Creek Hydro Jill Reese Investments & Brokerage 2007 O'Brien Creek Recon naissance Survey Alaska Energy Authority 2007 Fishhook Hydroelectric Project Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC 2007 Allison Lake Hydro Project Green Power Development, LLC 2007 Atka Hydro Cost Estimate Alaska Energy Authority 2007 Chitina Conceptual Design Alaska Energy Authority 2006 Kasidaya (Otter) Creek Intake Alaska Power & Telephone Company 2006 Larsen Bay Alaska Energy Authority 2006 Chuniisax Hydro Phase 3 Alaska Energy Authority 2006 Chignik Bay Scoping Field Trip Alaska Energy Authority 2005 Atka Hydro Design Changes and Inspection Alaska Energy Authority 2005 Larsen Bay Turbine Repair City of Larsen Bay 2005 Old Harbor Archiving Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2005 Chignik Dam Inspection Norquest Seafoods Inc 2004 Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Upgrade Alaska Energy Authority 2004 Chignik Stream Gauge Installation Alaska Energy Authority 2004 Atka Revisions Alaska Energy Authority 2004 Chignik Relicense Trident Seafoods 2003 Atka Hydro Design City of Atka 2003 Old Harbor Project Review Alaska Energy Authority 2002 Atka Hydro F&G City of Atka 2002 Scammon Stream Gauging Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2002 Old Harbor - Alternate Powerhouse Location Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2002 Old Harbor Project Comparison Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2001 Pelican Penstock Design Pelican Seafoods 2001 Old Harbor Hydro Project - Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2000 Old Harbor Hydro Project - FERC Licensing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1999 Chignik Dam Survey Norquest Seafoods Inc 1999 Southfork Hydro Plant South Fork Construction 1998 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC 6 Job Name Client Year Lace Hydro Lace River Hydro, LLC 1997 Atka Hydro Investigation City of Atka 1996 Chignik Lagoon Hydro Study Chignik Lagoon 1995 Old Harbor Hydropower Feasibility Study Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1995 Terror Lake desander Tango Construction Co 1994 Tenakee Springs/Indian River Hydro City of Tenakee Springs 1993 Pelican Seafoods Hydroelectric Renovation Pelican Seafoods 1993 Angoon Hydroelectric Investigation Alaska Energy Authority 1992 Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Cordova Electric 1992 Snyder Falls Hydroelectric Study Earl Ellis & Associates 1990 McRobert’s Creek Hydroelectric Project Earle Ausman 1990 Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Plant City of Larsen Bay 1990 Snettisham Hydroelectric Project US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District 1989 Chitina Micro Hydro Project Chitina Village Council 1989 Burnett Inlet Hydroelectric Plant Design Alaska Aquaculture 1988 Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Plant City of Ouzinkie 1986 In addition, Polarconsult’s project team has extensive experience with design and force account construction of many types of rural projects in addition to hydro. These include utility design and construction management of water, sewer, and electrical projects. Much of this work was performed for the City of St. Paul, and our experience extends to many other communities throughout Alaska as well. It is important to emphasize that most of the work is performed by force account using local labor and other resources. Polarconsult believes it is important to have people build their own projects so they can operate and repair them. It is also important to make them economical and keep the maximum amount of money in the community. 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 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. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance 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. 58% 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] 6,500 kW installed capacity – run-of-river hydro 58% capacity factor b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 34,100,000 kWh/yr 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 $24,000,000 (est.) b) Development cost $1,000,000 (est.) c) Annual O&M cost of new system $555,000 (est.) d) Annual fuel cost zero 5. Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity 34,100,000 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 $44,427,425 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, $44,427,425 / $23,798,766 = 2.00 Payback (years) $25 M / $1.75M = 14.3 years Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010 ATTACHMENT C – GRANT BUDGET FORM Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IVGrant Budget Form9/3/2010 Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project - Reconnaissance Knik, AlaskaRE- Fund Grantee MatchingSource of Matching Funds: Grant Funds FundsCash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/OtherProject Administration and Management (Contracting) 9/1/2012 $0 $4,000 Cash and In-Kind Services $4,000Resource Identification and Analysis 8/1/2012 $52,500 $7,500 Cash and In-Kind Services $60,000Land Use, Permitting, and Environmental Analysis 7/1/2012 $4,375 $625 Cash and In-Kind Services $5,000Preliminary Design and Cost Analysis 8/1/2012 $8,750 $1,250 Cash and In-Kind Services $10,000Reconnanssance-level economic analysis 8/1/2012 $4,375 $625Cash and In-Kind Services $5,000Final Report and Recommendations 9/1/2012 $14,000 $2,000 Cash and In-Kind Services $16,000TOTALS$84,000$16,000$100,000Direct Labor & Benefits$0 $4,000 In-Kind Services $4,000Travel & Per Diem$0 $0$0Equipment$0 $0$0Materials & Supplies$0 $0$0Contractual Services$84,000 $12,000 Cash $96,000Construction Services$0 $0$0Other$0 $0$0 TOTALS$84,000$16,000$100,000TASK TOTALSBudget Categories:Milestone or TaskAnticipated Completion Date Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010 ATTACHMENT D – LOCAL SUPPORT Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010 ATTACHMENT E – ELECTRONIC COPY OF APPLICATION Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010 ATTACHMENT F – AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010 ATTACHMENT G – GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11-005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010 ATTACHMENT I – MAPS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round IV Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project – Reconnaissance AEA11 -005 Grant Application ATTACHMENTS 9/9/2010