HomeMy WebLinkAboutEek Wind Feasibility Round IV Grant ApplicationAlaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Eek Wind Feasibility
Renewable Energy Fund-Round IV
Grant Application
Submitted by:
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Submitted to:
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
September 15, 2010
ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,INC.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
Grant Application
AEA 11-005 Application Page 1 of 18 7/21/2010
EEK WIND FEASIBILITY
SECTION 1 –APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Type of Entity:
Electric Utility
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Physical Address
Telephone
907.561.5531
Fax
907.561.4086
Email
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Brent Petrie
Title
Manager, Community Development Key Accounts
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
(907)565-5531
Fax
(907)562-4086
Email
BPetrie@avec.org
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are:(put an X in the appropriate box)
x An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
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
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 18 7/21/2010
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)
Eek Wind Phase II Feasibility
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.
Eek (pop.272) lies on the south bank of the Eek River, 12 miles east of the mouth of the
Kuskokwim River. It is 35 air miles south of Bethel in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and 420 miles
west of Anchorage.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
x Wind Biomass or Biofuels
Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic
Solar Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe)
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Reconnaissance X Design and Permitting
Feasibility Construction and Commissioning
X Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met) tower and complete geotechnical work to
determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Eek.The work will would involve
obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the placement of the met tower and
geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting and installing a met tower at this location,
studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a geotechnical investigation to
determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design would
be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation.
Permits and site control would be obtained for the conceptual design of this project.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 18 7/21/2010
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel
costs, lower energy costs, etc.)
The primary financial benefit from this project would be to determine whether the wind
resources are suited to provide power to the community and to prepare a conceptual design of
a wind facility.
Once constructed, this project could produce 163,987 kW annually. The possible displacement
of diesel fuel used for village power generation in Eek could be 13,632 gal/yr (assuming 80%
turbine availability). This project could save $48,800, the first year of operation (2014).
See the detailed project benefits in Section 5.0.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
The total project cost for the project is $150,000 of which $142,500 is requested in grant funds
from AEA. The remaining $7,500 (5%)would be matched in cash by AVEC.
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.$142,500
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match)$7,500
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2)$150,000
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)
$750,000
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings)$ to be determined
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.)
$ to be determine
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 18 7/21/2010
AVEC would provide overall project management and oversight.AVEC is the electric utility
serving Eek.To further support the AVEC team in project delivery, wind resource, engineering,
and environmental consultants would be selected.
Brent Petrie, Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts, would lead the project
management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors.He has worked for
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative since 1998, where he manages the development of
alternatives to diesel generation for AVEC such as using wind, hydropower, and heat recovery.
He also manages relationships with AVEC’s largest customers and is the project manager for
AVEC’s many construction projects as an energy partner of the federally funded Denali
Commission.
Mr. Petrie has worked in the energy and resource field for more than thirty years, having
worked for the federal and state governments as consultant, planner, and project manager. He
has been a utility manager or management consultant since 1993. As General Manager of
Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative from 1994 to 1998, he reported to a seven-
member, elected board of directors, and served as project manager on its hydroelectric project
development. He is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Utility Wind Interest
Group representing rural electric cooperatives and serves on the Power Supply Task force of
the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Mr. Petrie has a Master’s Degree in Water
Resource Management and a Bachelor's degree in Geography. His resume is attached.
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.)
Authorization to Proceed:September 2011
Select Contractors:September 2011
Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits:September 2011
Ship Met Tower:September 2011
Erect Met Tower:September 2011
Complete Monitor Met Tower Data:October 2011-September 2012
Geotech Field Work:October 2011
Geotech Report:December 2011
Dismantle Met Tower:September 2012
Wind Resource Report:October 2012
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate:November 2012
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 18 7/21/2010
Permits for Conceptual Design:December 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.)
1.Project scoping and contractor solicitation (September 1-September 15, 2011)
AVEC would select a contractor for the wind feasibility, geotechnical analysis, conceptual
design, and permitting immediately following AEA’s authorization to proceed.
2.Detailed resource assessment (September 15, 2011-October 31, 2012)
To initiate the Wind Resource Analysis before winter,AVEC would purchase (if necessary),ship,
and erect the met tower in September 2011. AVEC would immediately seek approvals from
permitting agencies, starting the process before the grant is awarded to ensure that the met
tower can be installed in the late fall. The earlier the met tower is collecting data, the earlier
AVEC would have the wind resource data to ascertain the suitability of use this renewable
resource.Monitoring of the met tower would continue until September, 2012, when the met
tower would be dismantled. The wind resource report would be drafted by the end of October,
2012.
3.Identification and resolution of land issues (September 15, 2011-June 1, 2012)
AVEC would work with the Iqfijouaq (Native) Corporation to obtain a letter of non objection for
the placement of the met tower and geotechnical work. Permanent site control to place
turbines, if feasible,would be negotiated.
4.Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and future market (February 1-March 30, 2012)
AVEC would draft a memorandum documenting the existing and future energy costs and
markets in Eek. The information would be based on AVEC records and community plans. A
community meeting would be held to determine future energy markets.
5.Detailed economic and financial analyses (June 1-August 30, 2012)
An economic and financial analysis, which examines potential final design and construction
costs, operating and maintenance costs, user rates, and other funding mechanisms,would be
developed.
6.Conceptual business & operations plan (June 1-October 31, 2012)
Draft business and operational plans would be developed working with the City of Eek and the
Eek Iqfijouaq Corporation.The conceptual plan would include draft recovered heat
agreements.
7.Conceptual design and costs estimate (September 1-November 1, 2012)
Various wind turbines would be examined to determine which would be best suited to fit the
lower energy demand and single phase electric system in Eek.A conceptual design and cost
estimate would be prepared using information gathered from the wind study and geotechnical
fieldwork.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 18 7/21/2010
8.Permitting and environmental analysis (September 15-December 15, 2012)
Environmental permits would be obtained for the conceptual design of the project.
9.Final report and recommendations (December 31, 2012)
All of the memoranda and reports written for the project would be combined in a final report
and submitted to AEA. The Final Report would include final drafts of the following:
Wind Resource Report
Site Control Memo
Existing and Future Energy Costs and Markets Memorandum
Economic and Financial Analysis
Conceptual Business and Operating Plan
Geotechnical Report
Conceptual Design Analysis and Cost Estimate, including an turbines analysis
Environmental Permits
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.
AVEC would use a project management approach that has been used to successfully design and
construct wind turbines throughout rural Alaska: A team of AVEC staff and external consultants.
AVEC staff and their role on this project includes:
Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer,would act as Project Executive and
will maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.
Brent Petrie, Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts, would lead the
project management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors.
Together with his group, Brent would provide coordination of the installation of the met
tower, geotechnical work, conceptual design, and permitting. The group’s resources
include a project coordinator, contracts clerk, accountant, engineer, and a community
liaison.Brent would be responsible for reporting directly to AEA on the status of the
project.
Mark Teitzel, Vice President/Manager of Engineering,would provide technical
assistance and information on the existing power system and possible issues and project
study needs.
Debbie Bullock, manager of administrative services,would provide support in
accounting,payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with
AEA guidelines.
Anna Sattler, community liaison,would lead development of the Existing and Future
Energy Costs and Markets Memorandum and the Conceptual Business and Operating
Plan. Ms. Sattler would also communicate directly with Eek residents to ensure that the
community is informed.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 18 7/21/2010
An AVEC project manager would lead this project.It is likely that one of AVEC’s in-house
contractors would lead the work.The project manager would be responsible for:
Obtaining site control/access and permits for the installation of the met tower and
geotechnical work
Selecting, coordinating, and managing the wind resource, geotechnical,engineering,
and permitting consultants and ensuring that their deliverables are on time and within
budget
Working with AVEC’s Community Liaison to develop the Existing and Future Energy
Costs and Markets Memorandum and the Conceptual Business and Operating Plan
Working to develop the Economic and Financial Analysis
Contractors for this project would include:
Wind Resource Consultant.AVEC currently has an on-call contract with V3 Energy, LLC for
wind resource studies and reports.It is likely that V3 would work on this project. Doug
Vaught’s (V3’s owner) resume is attached.V3 would:
o Supervise the installation of the met tower
o Consult on the operation and maintenance of the tower
o Draft the wind resource report
o Geotechnical consultant.AVEC would select and employ an experienced geotechnical
consultant who would:
o Conduct a geotechnical and natural hazards field study and report of the project
area
Engineering consultant.AVEC would select and employ an engineering consultant who
would:
o Provide conceptual design and engineering specifications for the wind turbines
Environmental Consultant.AVEC currently has an on-call contract with Solstice Alaska
Consulting, Inc for environmental permitting. It is likely that Solstice would work on this
project. Robin Reich’s (Solstice’s president) resume is attached. Solstice would:
o Consult with agencies
o Develop and submit permit applications
o Document mitigation requirements
Selection Process for Contractors:The geotechnical and engineering consultant selection
would be based upon technical competencies, past performance, written proposal quality, cost,
and general consensus from the technical steering committee.The selection of the consultant
would occur in strict conformity with corporate procurement policies, conformance with OMB
circulars, and DCAA principles.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
AVEC would require that monthly written progress reports be provided with each invoice
submitted from contractors. The progress reports would include a summary of tasks
completed, issues or problems experienced, upcoming tasks, and contractor’s needs from
AVEC. Project progress reports would be collected and forwarded as one package to the AEA
project manager each month.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 18 7/21/2010
Quarterly face-to-face meetings would occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all
wind projects funded through the AEA Renewable Energy Grants program. Individual project
meetings would be held, as required or requested by AEA.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Site Control/Access.Sometimes site control for the placement of met towers or turbines is
difficult; however,because the community supports the project (letters of support have been
received from all community entities),it is not expected that gaining site control would be
difficult.
Weather.Weather could delay geotechnical fieldwork and/or the erection of the met tower;
however, an experienced consultant, familiar with Alaskan weather conditions, would be
selected. It unlikely that a delay in the total project schedule would occur if the fieldwork or
erection of the met tower is delayed.It is possible to erect the met tower during winter
months.The met tower would be installed to handle the Eek’s coastal Alaska winter weather
conditions. The met tower would be monitored by local AVEC personnel to ensure the met
tower is up and functioning properly throughout the year.
Construction Funding.By having the project designed and permitted, AVEC would be prepared
to capitalize on many funding opportunities.
Environmental Permitting.Permits would be acquired as a part of this project.AVEC would
hire an environmental consultant familiar with permitting wind projects in Alaska. Early
consultation with agencies would occur in order to flesh out location, natural and social
environment, specific species, and mitigation issues. The consultant would work openly with
the agencies and conduct studies as appropriate.
SECTION 4 –PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of
the RFA.
The level of information will vary according to phase(s)of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a
plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project.
The wind resource in Eek is estimated based on wind studies completed in the nearby
communities of Quinhagak, Bethel, and Kongiganak. The wind resource in Quinhagak was
measured by V3 Energy with a met tower study from October,2005 to May,2007 (See Wind
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 18 7/21/2010
Resource Report in Tab G.). The annual average wind speed at 30 meters was calculated to be
6.3 m/s, wind power density at 30 m of 338 W/m2 (wind power class 4), Weibull k of 1.87, mean
TI of .088 and power law exponent of 0.197. Quinhagak classified as an IEC Class IIIC site
(extreme wind and turbulence behavior).
Other data sources, including a March 2006 AEA Report (M. Devine) for Chefornak, indicate
measured annual wind speed average in Bethel at 6.9 m/s and Kongiganak at 7.3 m/s. The
Bethel and Kongiganak data indicated similar Weibull k, turbulence and wind shear values as
Quinhagak. Given that Eek was not directly measured for wind resource, but the referenced
communities of Quinhagak, Bethel and Kongiganak bracket Eek in three directions and share
similar topographic features, the referenced data sources are thought highly representative of
the expected wind in Eek. Of the three referenced communities, the wind data in Quinhagak
was selected to represent Eek as it exhibited the lowest average wind speed and; therefore,is
the most conservative for this analysis. The actual wind resource in Eek may be higher; closer to
that measured in Kongiganak. If true, energy production from a proposed wind turbine would
be higher than estimated in this proposal.
Solar power from photovoltaic solar arrays is a potential alternative energy source, but has
higher capital cost and lower resource availability than wind in Eek.
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.
The existing power generations system in Eek consists of three diesel generators:one 168 kW
Cummins LTA10 (10 years old), one 236 kW Detroit Series 60 (4 years old), and one 175 kW Cat
D342 (21 years old). Individual generator efficiency is not tracked, but the aggregate diesel
generator efficiency in 2009 was 12.03 kWh/gallon.
The data indicates that peak demands in Eek have remained relatively constant over the past
five years with a maximum one-minute average peak of 188 kW occurring in 2006. Average
demand over the same period was approximately 88 kW.
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.
Existing energy infrastructure in Eek is primary diesel fuel for electrical power generation,
heating oil for boiler (thermal) and home heating, thermal heat recovery from the diesel engines
at the power plant, and diesel and gasoline fuel for transportation needs.In 2009,64,192
gallons of diesel fuel was consumed to generate 772,293 kWh.
The anticipated effects are less usage of diesel fuel for electrical power generation and less
usage of heating fuel for boiler operations (due to injection of excess wind power to the thermal
heat recovery loop).The diesel generator use in Eek would be decreased, thereby decreasing
generator operations and maintenance costs and enabling generators to last longer and need
fewer overhauls.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 18 7/21/2010
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market.Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Eek is located 35 air miles south of Bethel in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, and 420 miles west of
Anchorage. Average temperatures range from 6 to 57o F.Twenty nine percent of the
population is below the poverty line; the median household income is $27,500 —about half of
the State’s median household income of $59,036.
At present, Eek is a stand-alone electric power system with no intertie or connection beyond the
village itself.The electricity consumption (sold) in Eek in 2009 was 731,430 kWh. The load of is
highest during the winter months, with the bulk of electricity consumed by residences and the
school.If this study finds that winds are suitable, the addition of a wind turbine to the electric
generation system could reduce the amount of diesel fuel used for power generation and for
heating.
Eek is classified as an isolated village, relying on air transportation for delivery of medical goods
and transport of sick or injured individuals. Reliable electric service is essential to maintaining
vital navigation aids for the safe operation of aircraft. Runway lights, automated weather
observation stations, VASI lights, DME’s and VOR’s are all powered by electricity.Eek also hosts
a microwave tower and serves as a regional mini-hub connecting three surrounding villages and
Bethel.
Emergency medical service in both villages is provided in a health clinic by a health aide.
Medical problems and emergencies must be relayed by telephone or by some other
communication means for outside assistance. Operation of the telephone system requires
electricity. Reliable telephone service requires reliable electric service.
Like all of Alaska, Eek subject to long periods of darkness. Reliable electric service is essential for
the operation of home lighting, streetlights, and security lighting.Outside lighting greatly
improves the safety of village residents.
Eek is a traditional Yup'ik Eskimo village with a subsistence lifestyle. About 90% of residents’
diet consists of salmon caught near the community and stored in refrigerators and freezers.
Refrigeration is essential for the extended storage of perishable food stuffs, and reliable electric
service is essential for proper freeze storage of food.The construction of the proposed project
would augment and improve the existing power generation system by incorporating a locally
available renewable resource.
Sources: Alaska Community Database.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 18 7/21/2010
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
Renewable Energy Technology:Wind power is renewable energy option of choice for Eek. Of
the wind turbine options available on the market, the “village” scale turbine size (50 to 250 kW)
is considered most appropriate for Eek’s load profile.AVEC plans to conduct a feasibility
analysis and resources assessment to determine what turbine would be best suited for Eek’s
small load and single phase electric system.
Optimum installed capacity/Anticipated capacity factor/Anticipated annual generation.The
purpose of this work is to gather background information to plan a future alternative energy
facility.Anticipated capacity and generation would be examined for a number of turbine types
to determine the best option for the community.
Anticipated barriers.The potential barriers to success of this project include weather,
permitting,site control,and construction funding.Weather is a minor barrier and does not pose
a threat to the completion of this project.Permitting, based on an initial investigation does not
appear to be a significant hurdle to completing this phase of the project. Construction funding
would be easier to obtain with design and permits in hand.Site control should not be difficult to
obtain, since the City, Tribe, and Iqfijouaq Corporation support the project (See Section 8 and
Tab D).
Basic integration concept/Delivery methods.The wind turbines would need to interconnect
with the existing diesel power plant. Secondary load control would dispatch boilers as required
to use excess wind energy while allowing the diesel generators to continue running at efficient
levels.Conceptual design, to be completed as a part of this project, would detail how power
from a wind turbine would be integrated and delivered into the existing system in Eek.The
delivery method would be examined, since Eek has a single phase system and since some
turbines are not suited for this type of system.
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.
As seen in the Google Earth image below, the proposed turbine site is on the old airstrip on the
east side of the village, near an existing lattice-structure communication tower. Site control has
not been obtained but no problems are expected as the community has expressed a strong
interest in wind power and the old airstrip is the best location possible with respect to access,
proximity to the airport, and foundation issues.Letters of support have been received from all
community entities.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 18 7/21/2010
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
FAA Air Navigation Hazard Permitting.A non-hazard determination would be sought from the
Federal Aviation Administration as soon as the met tower location has been determined. It is
expected that this determination would be issued within one month, since the location would
be selected based on airspace availability and limitations.
After the turbine location and type have been selected, AVEC would seek a non-hazard
determination from FAA for the potential turbines. AVEC would to this early in the process, to
ensure that enough time and resources are allocated to this effort. It is expected to take about
3 month to obtain the determination for the turbines.The turbines would be going up near an
already permitted 300 feet tall microwave tower; therefore, it is unlikely that FAA would object
to installing turbines in this area.
Endangered Species Act/Migratory Bird Treaty Act Consultation:Consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Migratory
Bird Treaty Act would be required to install the met tower.A finding letter stating that the
project would not be expected to impact threatened or endangered species or birds would be
drafted and submitted to the USFWS once AVEC is assured this project is funded. It is expected
that AVEC would receive concurrence from the Service within one month. The authorization
would be issued prior to initiating met tower work in October 2011.
After the turbine location and type has been selected, AVEC would prepare another letter to the
USFWS stating that the project would not be expected to impact birds under their jurisdiction. It
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 18 7/21/2010
is expected that the USFWS would concur with AVEC’s finding within one month of receiving the
letter.
Clean Water Act (Section 401) Permit:If all project components are constructed on the existing
runway, no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)Wetlands Permit would be needed. However,
if any component is proposed adjacent to the runway, a Corps permit would be needed.
Because of the limited footprint of the met tower and geotech work,a “Nationwide Permit”
would be sought. The application/preconstruction notice would be submitted to the Corps once
funding is assured, and the permit would issued prior to initiating met tower work in October
2011.
If the wind turbines or their access are constructed off of the old runway, an individual wetland
permit would be sought from the Corps. The application would be submitted once conceptual
design has been completed. It is expected that the permit would be issued within 3 months.
Coastal Plan Consistency Determination-A State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DNR-DCOM)Coastal Project Questionnaire and
Enforceable Policies Consistency Determination (CPQ) would be prepared and submitted after
the conceptual design of the turbines is completed. By statute, it would take at least 60 days to
complete the permitting process.(Because a Corps’ Nationwide Permit exists,a DNR-DCOM
determination is not needed for the met tower.)
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
Threatened or endangered species.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be consulted to
ensure that installation of a met tower and the construction of the wind turbines would have no
affect on threatened or endangered species, particularly Steller’s eiders. Construction would be
timed to avoid impacts to migratory birds in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Habitat issues.During permitting,the project team would work with agencies to ensure that
the project would not impact any State refuges, sanctuaries, or critical habitat areas, federal
refuges or wilderness areas, or national parks.
Wetlands and other protected areas.If the met tower or turbine is placed off the runway, it
would likely be placed in a wetland location. An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ wetlands permit
would be needed.
Archaeological and historical resources.Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer would be conducted prior to
construction of the wind turbines.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 14 of 18 7/21/2010
Land development constraints.AVEC is currently working with the Iqfijouaq Corporation to
gain site control.
Aviation considerations.The turbines would be located away from the active airport and
outside any important operational aircraft area.The turbines would be going up near an already
permitted 300 feet tall microwave tower; therefore, it is unlikely that FAA would object to
installing turbines in this area.
Visual, aesthetics impacts.It is likely that residents would be willing to accept some aesthetic
impacts in the interest of lowering the cost of energy. AVEC would conduct community
meetings to discuss community impacts and how they could be minimized.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards,
Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Applicant matching funds –loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase/requested grant funding/matching
funds.AVEC plans to conduct a Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment, and Conceptual
Design to assess the possibility of using wind power in Eek. This work would cost $150,000.
AVEC requests $142,500 from AEA. AVEC would provide $7,500 as an in-kind contribution.
Identification of other funding sources.Once the turbine type is determined, the next phase of
this project would be final design and construction. Although it is difficult to determine without
an assessment of the resource and what type, size, and number of turbine would be needed,
AVEC expects that final design and construction would cost $750,000. It is possible that the
funding for this work could come from a USDA Rural Utility Service program, the Denali
Commission, or another grant program.
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system/projected development cost of
proposed renewable energy system.The final phase of this project would be Design and
Construction and Commissioning (Phase IV). AVEC estimates that this phase could cost
$750,000. AVEC would provide a 10% cash match ($75,000)for the construction project.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 15 of 18 7/21/2010
communities they serve.)
The met tower would require monthly monitoring and data management. It is expected that
this would cost $700 total for the year that the met tower is erected. The cost would be funded
by this grant award.
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
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s).AVEC, the existing electric utility
serving Eek,is a member-owned cooperative electric utility and typically owns and maintains the
generation, fuel storage, and distribution facilities in the villages it serves.
Eek has 76 households and a health clinic, city office, tribal council office, and water treatment
plant/washeteria, which purchase power from AVEC.At this point in project development, the
potential power price and rate of return on the project is unknown
Potential power purchase/sales price/ Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project.At
this point in project development, the potential power price and rate of return on the project is
unknown. Work done under this grant would determine this.
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
Please see cost/benefit sheet under Tab C.
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
Potential annual fuel displacement:The project could decrease diesel use by 13,632 gal/yr
(based on preliminary numbers and 80% turbine availability) and 272,630 gallons over the
lifetime of the project. Based on ISER’s estimated fuel costs, this project could save
approximately $48,800 year during its first full year of operation (planned to be 2014).
Anticipated annual revenue/Potential additional annual incentives/Potential additional
annual revenue streams.Because this project is in the concept design stage, revenue and
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 16 of 18 7/21/2010
incentives are unknown.
Non-economic public benefits.The anticipated benefits of installation of the wind turbines
would be reducing the negative impact of the cost of energy by providing a renewable energy
alternative.This project could help stabilize energy costs and provide long-term socio-economic
benefits to village households.Locally produced, affordable energy will empower community
residents and could help avert rural to urban migration, which would help larger Alaska
communities.
Eek will be a pilot project for communities with smaller populations and lower electric demand.
While larger villages have mostly been evaluated for wind resources, studying Eek will enable
AVEC to discover ways to economically integrate wind power into the diesel-generating plants in
smaller villages.The lessons learned from this project could be used in other small villages
throughout the State.
This project would help AVEC to determine potential locations to be served by recovered heat.
If determined feasible, the terms of recovered heat agreements would be negotiated with
entities to be served. Once the wind project is constructed and heat recovery systems are in
place, the costs to operate important facilities in Eek including the water treatment plant and
school,could be decreased, enabling managing entities (City of Eek, Eek Traditional Council and
Iqfijouaq Corporation,Yukon-Kuskokwim School District) to operate more economically.
Stabilized energy costs would also allow community entities to plan and budget for
important community infrastructure listed in the Eek Community Comprehensive Plan
(Native Village of Eek, 2004), including the expansion of the health clinic, a piped water and
sewer system, and additional housing.
Eek residents health and safety would benefit from the environmental benefits resulting from a
reduction of hydrocarbon use, including:
Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus
protecting vital water and subsistence food sources)
Improved air quality
Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use
The community of Eek has a small electricity load and AVEC is interested in investigating
turbines other than the Northwind 100s to install in the community. The investigation of
other turbines not currently used at other AVEC facilities or in rural Alaska would help
other communities to understand whether a different turbine is suitable for their
community.
The community of Eek has a single phase electric system. Investigation of other turbines
would also assist other single phase community to know whether there is a cost effective
solution other than changing to a three phase system.
This project would help with the understanding of the wind resource in Northwest Alaska. Data
acquired from this study assist nearby communities at the mouth of the Kuskokwim River to
understand their wind resource.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 17 of 18 7/21/2010
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
As a local utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC is completely able to finance,
operate, and maintain this project for the design life. AVEC has capacity and experience to
operate this project. AVEC has operating wind projects throughout the state and is very familiar
with planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining wind systems.
Business Plan Structures and Concepts which may be considered:The wind turbines would be
incorporated into AVEC’s power plant operation. Local plant operators provide daily servicing.
AVEC technicians provide periodic preventative or corrective maintenance and are supported by
AVEC headquarters staff, purchasing, and warehousing.
How O&M will be financed for the life of the project:The costs of operations and maintenance
would be funded through ongoing energy sales to the villages.
Operational issues which could arise:There are no known met tower operational issues.
Operational issues of the proposed turbines would be determined.
Operating costs:Different turbines have different operating costs; however AEA estimates O&M
would cost $0.022/kWh.
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits:AVEC is fully committed to sharing the
savings and benefits accrued from this project information with their shareholders and AEA.
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.
Once funding is known to be secured,AVEC would seek a non-objection letter from the Iqfijouaq
Corporation and begin the FAA and USFWS permitting process.AVEC would seek contractors to
install the met tower and complete the geotechnical work once the grant agreement is in place.
Met tower installation and geotech work would occur before winter.Work that can be
completed before the wind study is completed would occur over the winter, including analysis
of current cost of energy and future market and the economic and financial analyses. Once the
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 18 of 18 7/21/2010
wind study is completed, the conceptual design and permitting would occur.
No other grants have been secured for this work in the past.
SECTION 8–LOCAL SUPORT
Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include
letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project.
The community is very committed to moving this project forward and fully supports this project.
Letters of support for this project have been received the City of Eek, the Native Village of Eek,
and the Iqfijouaq Company, Incorporated.(See Tab D.)
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
AVEC plans to conduct a feasibility analysis, resources assessment,conceptual design, and
permitting to assess the possibility of using wind power in Eek. This work will cost $150,000.
AVEC requests $142,500 from AEA. AVEC will provide $7,500 as cash contribution.A detail of
the grant budget follows. Also see Tab 4.
Milestone or Task Grant Funds AVEC Cash
Match TOTALS
1.Project scoping and contractor solicitation $1,900 $100 $2,000
2.Detailed resource assessment (includes
purchasing a met tower,*monitoring,and
reporting)
$31,350 $1,650 $33,000
3.Identification and resolution of land issues $4,750 $250 $5,000
4.Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and
future market $9,500 $500 $10,000
5.Detailed economic and financial analyses $4,750 $250 $5,000
6.Conceptual business & operations plan $1,900 $100 $2,000
7.Conceptual design and costs estimate (includes
geotech work)$78,850 $4,150 $83,000
8.Permitting and environmental analysis $6,650 $350 $7,000
9.Final report and recommendations $2,850 $150 $3,000
TOTALS $142,500 $7,500 $150,000
*If a met tower is available without purchase,there would be cost savings to the project.
To date,no funds have been obtained for this project.
If the wind resource proves to be suitable, AVEC would seek funding to construct turbines in
Eek.AVEC would provide a 10% cash match to any obtained funding.
Tab A
Resumes
V3 Energy, LLC Douglas Vaught, P.E. 19211 Babrof Drive Eagle River, AK 99577 USA tel 907.350.5047 email dvaught@mtaonline.net Consulting Services : • Wind resource analysis and assessment, including IEC 61400-1 3 rd ed. protocols • Wind turbine siting, FAA permitting, and power generation prediction • Wind-diesel power plant modeling and configuration design • Cold climate and rime icing environment analysis of wind turbine operations • Met tower/sensor/logger installation and removal (tubular towers 10 to 60 meters in height) Partial List of Clients: • Alaska Village Electric Cooperative • NANA Pacific, LLC • enXco Development Corp. • Bristol Bay Native Corp. • Naknek Electric Association • Kodiak Electric Association • Barrick Gold • Alaska Energy Authority • North Slope Borough • Manokotak Natives Ltd. Representative Projects: • Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. Site selection, FAA permitting, met tower installation, data analysis/wind resource assessment, turbine energy recovery analysis, rime icing/turbine effects analysis, powerplant system modeling. Contact information: Brent Petrie, Key Accounts Mgr, 907-565-5358 • Kodiak Electric Association. Met tower installation, data analysis and modeling for Alaska’s first utility scale turbines (GE 1.5sle) on -line July 2009. Contact information: Darron Scott, CEO, 907 -486-7690. • NANA Pacific, LLC. Site reconnaissance and selection, permitting, met tower installation, wind resource assessment and preliminary power system modeling for Northwest Arctic Borough villages and Red Dog Mine. Contact information: Jay Hermanson, Program Manager, 907-339-6514 • enXco Development Corp. Met tower installation documentation, site reconnaissance , analysis equipment management for utility-sca le wind projects, including Fire Island near Anchorage. Contact information: Steve Gilbert, Alaska Projects Manager, 907-333-0810. • Naknek Electric Association. Long -term wind resource assessment at two sites (sequentially), including site selection, met tower installation, data analysis, turbine research, performance modeling, and project economic analysis. Contact information: Donna Vukich, General Manager, 907-246-4261 • North Slope Borough (with Powercorp Alaska, LLC). Power system modeling, site reconnaissance and selection, FAA permitting, wind turbine cold climate and icing effects white paper. Contact information: Kent Grinage, Public Works Dept., 907-852-0285 Recent Presentations: • Wind Power Icing Challenges in Alaska: a Case Study of the Native Village of Saint Mary’s, presented at Winterwind 2008, Norrköping, Sweden, Dec. 8, 2008.
Tab B
Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-21-10
Eek Wind Feasibility
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.Wind Class 4 (based on Quin. data); 26% gross CF (est.)
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 3 diesel generators
ii.Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 579 kW (1x168 kW, 1x236 kW, 1x175 kW)
iii.Generator/boilers/other type diesel
iv.Age of generators/boilers/other 168 kW-1999, 236 kW-2005, 175 kW-1988
v.Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 12.03 kWh/gal (2009 AVEC Operations data)
b)Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i.Annual O&M cost for labor 140,000 (labor and non-labor combined)
ii.Annual O&M cost for non-labor N/A
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]772,293 kWh (2009 AVEC Operations data)
ii.Fuel usage
Diesel [gal]64,192 gal (2009 AVEC Operations data)
Other
iii.Peak Load 165 kW (2009 AVEC Operations data)
iv.Average Load 88 kW (2009 AVEC Operations data)
v.Minimum Load
vi.Efficiency 12.03 kWh/gal (2009 AVEC Operations data)
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]
Wind,90 kW capacity expected (Vestas V17 turbine)
b)Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i.Electricity [kWh]163,987 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 $0.9M ($10,000/kW installed)
b)Development cost
c)Annual O&M cost of new system $3,700 (wind only, $0.022/kW, 1st yr, 2.5%↑/yr)
d)Annual fuel cost
5.Project Benefits
a)Amount of fuel displaced for
i.Electricity 13,632 gallons
ii.Heat
iii.Transportation
b)Current price of displaced fuel $3.02 (ISER 2010)
c)Other economic benefits
d)Alaska public benefits
6.Power Purchase/Sales Price
a)Price for power purchase/sale
7.Project Analysis
a)Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 0.98
Payback (years)13.5
Tab C
Budget Form
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form 7-21-10
EEK WIND FEASIBILITY
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion Date
RE-Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee Matching
Funds
Source of Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-kind/Federal
Grants/Other State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
1.Project scoping and contractor solicitation Sept 15, 2011 $1,900 $100 Cash $2,000
2.Detailed resource assessment (includes
monitoring and reporting)
Oct 31, 2012 $31,350 $1,650 Cash $33,000
3.Identification and resolution of land issues June 1, 2012 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000
4.Detailed analysis of current cost of energy
and future market
Mar 30, 2012 $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000
5.Detailed economic and financial analyses Aug 30, 2012 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000
6.Conceptual business & operations plan Oct 31, 2012 $1,900 $100 Cash $2,000
7.Conceptual design and costs estimate
(includes geotech work)
Nov 1, 2012 $78,850 $4,150 Cash $83,000
8.Permitting and environmental analysis Dec 31, 2012 $6,650 $350 Cash $7,000
9.Final report and recommendations Dec 31, 2012 $2,850 $150 Cash $3,000
TOTALS $142,500 $7,500 $150,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $$5,000 $5,000
Travel & Per Diem $$2,000 $2,000
Equipment $$$
Materials & Supplies $$500 $500
Contractual Services $142,500 $$142,500
Construction Services $$$
Other $$$
TOTALS $142,500 $7,500 $150,000
Tab D
Letters of Support
Tab E
Authorized Signers Form
Tab F
Authority
Tab G
Additional Materials
V3 Energy LLC 1 of 17 Eek Wind Power Report Report prepared by: Douglas Vaught, P.E., V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, AK Date of report: August 1 6 , 2010 (revision 2 ) Contents Summary Information ................................................................................................................................... 2 Wind Turbine Performance .......................................................................................................................... 2 Wind Farm ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Village Load ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Eek Wind Farm Performance .................................................................................................................... 4 Quinhagak Met Tower Wind Data ................................................................................................................ 8 Data Quality Control Summary ................................................................................................................. 8 Measured Wind Speeds .......................................................................................................................... 10 Wind Shear .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Probability Distribution Function ............................................................................................................ 12 Wind Roses .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Turbulence Intensity ............................................................................................................................... 14 Air Temperature and Density .................................................................................................................. 16
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 2 of 17 Summary Information The wind resource in Eek is estimated based on wind studies completed in the nearby communities of Quinhagak, Bethel, and Kongiganak. The wind resource in Quinhagak was measured from October 2005 to May 2007 with a 30 meter met tower located near the site of the recently-constructed wind turbines. The mean wind speed in Quinhagak (at 30 meters) was measured at 6.3 m/s with calculated wind power density of 338 W/m 2. Quinhagak classified as IEC Class III-c. Other data sources, including a March 2006 AEA Report (M. Devine) for Chefornak, indicate mean annual mean wind speed in Bethel as 6.9 m/s and Kongiganak as 7.3 m/s. The Bethel and Kongiganak data indicated similar Weibull k, turbulence and wind shear values as Quinhagak. Given t hat a met tower study has not been conducted in Eek, but the referenced communities of Quinhagak, Bethel and Kongiganak bracket Eek in three directions and share similar topographic features, the referenced data sources are thought highly representative of Eek’s expected wind resource. Of the three referenced communities, the wind data in Quinhagak was selected to represent Eek as it exhibited the lowest average wind speed and hence is most conservative. The actual wind resource in Eek may be stronger ; closer to that of Kongiganak. If true, energy production from the proposed wind turbine would be higher than estimated in this report . Wind Turbine Performance It is perhaps counterintuitive that wind power density and wind class do not correlate linearly with turbine power output. This is due to a number of factors, including theoretical limitations of a lift -producing aerodynamic device (the turbine rotor) and practical limitations of generator weight and rated output. For these reasons and others, a wind turbine in a low power class wind regime may still produce sufficient energy to warrant installation of turbines. A simplistic consideration of possible turbine output in Eek is to model power output of a particular turbine with mean of monthly means dat a collected to date and extrapolating to the turbine hub height. Turbine performance was analyzed with the HOMER software using the Northern Power Northwind 100 B model (100 kW rated output, 21 meter rotor diameter), the (remanufactured) Vestas V17 (90 kW rated output, 17 meter rotor diameter) and the Bergey Excel-S (10 kW, 7 mete r rotor diameter ). Note that the NW100/21 is available with a 37 meter tower (a 30 meter tower may be available by special order), the Vestas with a 26 meter tower, and the Bergey is available with a wind range of tower options, including tubular, lattice and tilt-up options. For this study, 30, 37 and 43 meter standard guyed lattice towers were considered.
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 3 of 17 Eek Turbine Performance Estimates 100% availability 90% availability 80% availability Hub height Wind speed Capacity factor Production Capacity factor Production Capacity factor Production Turbine (m) (m/s) (%) MWh/yr (%) MWh/yr (%) MWh/yr NW100/21 37 6.49 28.7 259.2 25.8 233.3 23.0 207.4 Vestas V17 26 6.18 23.8 187 .4 21.4 168.7 19.0 149.9 Excel-S 30 6.30 27.5 24.1 24.8 21.7 22.0 19.3 37 6.49 29.3 25.6 26.4 23.0 23.4 20.5 43 6.63 30.6 26.8 27.5 24.1 24.5 21.4 Wind Farm AVEC has proposed installation of one or more wind turbines to create a wind-diesel hybrid power system for the village of Eek. HOMER software was used to create an Eek village simulation model. Village Load An Eek hourly load profile was synthesized using the Alaska village load calculator Excel spreadsheet developed by Alaska Energy Authority several years ago. The results were adjusted slightly to match actual village average and peak loads of Eek documented by AVEC in their 2008 annual power generation report. The result is a virtual Eek village with a 90 kW average load, 144 kW peak load and average daily power usage of 2,156 kWh/day. Seasonal, daily and DMap profiles of the Eek virtual load are shown below. Seasonal profile Daily profile and DMap Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann50100150Load (kW)Seasonal Profile maxdaily highmeandaily lowmin061218240306090120Load (kW)Daily ProfileHour
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 4 of 17 Alaska village calculator load details, Eek Eek Wind Farm Performance HOMER software was used to estimate wind turbine production, wind penetration and fuel displacement for wind power input from operation of one Northern Power NW100/21 and three to six Bergey Excel-S turbines in an Eek wind regime based on nearby Quinhagak met tower dat a. HOMER modeling may in some cases yield lower production estimates than Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) methods which consider only performance of the turbine displacing fuel usage from diesel generators supplying essentially an infinite load. HOMER considers the dynamics of the actual village load and the reality that turbines will on occasion generate more power than can be absorbed by the village electric load. During these times, excess energy must be diverted to a secondary use, such as a thermal heating load, or turbine operation must be curtailed. For HOMER modeling, it was assumed that a diesel generator would remain on-line at all times with a minimum load of 25 kW. Control constraints for the model are system operating reserves of 10% of current load plus 50% of wind power input. 050100150200250300 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMWh/monthOtherCommunicationsHealth ClinicCity/GovernmentPublic Water SystemCommercialSchoolResidential
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 5 of 17 Wind turbine production estimates, 100% turbine availability No. of Turbines Hub ht. System Wind Penetration Wind Production Fuel Displaced System Excess Energy System Excess Energy Heating Fuel Equiv. Turbine (m) (%) (MWh/yr) (gal) (MWh/yr) (%) (gal) NW100/21 1 37 32.9 259.2 15,103 30.1 3.7 1,204 Vestas V17 1 26 23.8 187.4 12,547 11.7 1.5 468 Excel-S 3 37 9.8 77.0 5,496 0.0 0.0 0 4 37 13.0 102.6 7,304 0.3 0.1 12 5 37 16.3 128.3 9,018 2.0 0.3 80 6 37 19.6 154.0 10,592 5.6 0.7 224 Notes: 1. Quinhagak wind resource, Eek virtual village load 2. HOMER modeling assumes 100% turbine availability 3. Displaced fuel for electrical generation only 4. Excess electricity to secondary thermal heating load 5. Heating fuel equivalent for system excess energy dump; 25 kWh/gal conversion 6. HOMER model operation reserves: 10% current load, 50% wind power output 7. Diesel generator efficiency data from 2008 AVEC annual generation report 8. Minimum 25 kW diesel generator loading; all excess energy to secondary load Wind turbine production estimates, 80% turbine availability No. of Turbines Hub ht. System Wind Penetration Wind Production Fuel Displaced System Excess Energy System Excess Energy Heating Fuel Equiv. Turbine (m) (%) (MWh/yr) (gal) (MWh/yr) (%) (gal) NW100/21 1 37 26.3 207.4 12,083 24.1 3.0 963 Vestas V17 1 26 19.0 149.9 10,038 9.4 1.2 374 Excel-S 3 37 7.8 61.6 4,397 0.0 0.0 0 4 37 10.4 82.1 5,844 0.2 0.1 10 5 37 13.0 102.6 7,214 1.6 0.2 64 6 37 15.7 123.2 8,473 4.5 0.6 179 Notes: 1. Quinhagak wind resource, Eek virtual village load 2. Turbine availability adjusted to 80% 3. Displaced fuel for electrical generation only 4. Excess electricity to secondary thermal heating load 5. Heating fuel equivalent for system excess energy dump; 25 kWh/gal conversion 6. HOMER model operation reserves: 10% current load, 50% wind power output 7. Diesel generator efficiency data from 2008 AVEC annual generation report 8. Minimum 25 kW diesel generator loading; all excess energy to secondary load
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 6 of 17 HOMER modeled system interaction, one NW100 turbine HOMER modeled system interaction, one V17 turbine Jan 27 Jan 28 Jan 29020406080100120140 AC Primary LoadVestas V17Generator 1 PowerExcess Electricity
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 7 of 17 HOMER modeled system interaction, three Excel-S turbines, 37 m hub ht. HOMER modeled system interaction, six Excel-S turbines , 37 m hub ht. Jan 27 Jan 28 Jan 29020406080100120140 AC Primary LoadBWC Excel-S (2)Generator 1 PowerExcess ElectricityJan 27 Jan 28 Jan 29020406080100120140 AC Primary LoadBWC Excel-S (2)Generator 1 PowerExcess Electricity
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 8 of 17 Quinhagak Met Tower Wind Data Meteorological Tower Data Synopsis Wind power class (measured to date) Class 4 – Good Average wind speed (30 meters) 6.31 m/s Maximum wind gust (2 seconds) 43.6 m/s (1/30/07 ) Mean wind power density (50 meters) 436 W/m 2 Mean wind power density (30 meters) 340 W/m 2 Mean energy content (30 meters) 2,978 kWh/m2/yr Roughness Class 2.35 (few trees) Power law exponent 0.197 (moderate wind shear) Turbulence intensity 0.0915 (low) Frequency of calms (4 m/s threshold) 27 percent Data start date October 23, 2005 Most recent data date May 24 , 2007 Met Tower Sensor Information Channel Sensor type Height Multiplier Offset Orientation 1 NRG #40 anemometer 30 m (A) 0.765 0.35 NE 2 NRG #40 anemometer 30 m (B) 0.765 0.35 SW 3 NRG #40 anemometer 20 m 0.765 0.35 SW 7 NRG #200P wind vane 25 m 0.351 220 NE 9 NRG #110S Temp C 2 m 0.136 -86.383 N/A Site Information Site number 0022 Site Description Adjacent to proposed new powerplant, near tank farm Latitude/longitude N 0 59 ° 44.646 ’; W 1 61 ° 55.030’ Site elevation 3 meters Datalogger type NRG Symphonie Tower type NRG 30 -meter tall tower, 152 mm (6-in) diameter Data Quality Control Summary Data was filtered to remove presumed icing events that yield false zero wind speed data. Data that met the following criteria were filtered: wind speed < 1 m/s, wind speed sta ndard deviation = 0, and temperature < 3 °C. Other obvious icing data was removed even if it did not meet the above criteria. An offset failure in the temperature sensor occurred on July 7, 2006 resulting logged temperature data reading approximately 30° C lower than normal. An offset correction of +32.8° was added to all subsequent temperature data. It is not known if this offset correction is completely accurate for the ten months it covers, but a near accurate temperature record of the site was deemed more desirable than deleting most of the temperature record.
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 9 of 17 Data quality table 30 m A anem. 30 m B anem. 20 m anem. Records Recovery Rate Records Recovery Rate Records Recovery Rate 2005 Oct 1,235 90.5 1,235 90.5 1,235 90.5 2005 Nov 3,428 79.4 3,851 89.1 3,851 89.1 2005 Dec 4,148 92.9 3,986 89.3 4,464 100 2006 Jan 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Feb 4,032 100 4,032 100 4,032 100 2006 Mar 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Apr 4,320 100 4,320 100 4,320 100 2006 May 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Jun 4,320 100 4,320 100 4,320 100 2006 Jul 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Aug 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Sep 4,320 100 4,320 100 4,320 100 2006 Oct 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Nov 4,320 100 4,320 100 4,320 100 2006 Dec 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2007 Jan 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2007 Feb 4,032 100 4,032 100 4,032 100 2007 Mar 4,464 100 4,464 100 4,464 100 2007 Apr 4,201 97.2 4,320 100 4,204 97.3 2007 May 3,366 100 3,366 100 3,366 100 All data 81,898 98.3 82,278 98.7 82,640 99.1 25 m vane Temperature Records Recovery Rate Records Recovery Rate 2005 Oct 1,235 90.5 1,235 100 2005 Nov 3,397 78.6 4,320 100 2005 Dec 3,204 71.8 4,464 100 2006 Jan 4,193 93.9 4,464 100 2006 Feb 3,703 91.8 4,032 100 2006 Mar 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Apr 3,929 90.9 4,320 100 2006 May 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Jun 4,320 100 4,320 100 2006 Jul 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Aug 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Sep 4,320 100 4,320 100
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 10 of 17 2006 Oct 4,464 100 4,464 100 2006 Nov 4,320 100 4,320 100 2006 Dec 4,464 100 4,464 100 2007 Jan 4,239 95 4,464 100 2007 Feb 4,032 100 4,032 100 2007 Mar 4,464 100 4,464 100 2007 Apr 4,320 100 4,320 100 2007 May 3,366 100 3,366 100 All data 79,826 95.8 83,225 100 Note: shaded temperature data notes months where +32.8° offset correction was inserted for sensor offset error Measured Wind Speeds The Channel 1 (30 -meter [A]) anemometer wind speed average for the reporting period is 6.31 m/s. The Channel 2 (30-meter [B]) anemometer wind speed average is 6.30 m/s and the Channel 3 (20-meter) anemometer wind speed average for the reporting period is 5.80 m/s. Typically, the highest wind speeds occur during the winter months of October through March w ith the lowest winds during the summer months of May through September. The unusually low winds measured in January 2006 were due to a persistent high pressure system over Alaska that month that yielded calm winds and extremely cold weather Statewide. Ja nuary 2006 was then followed by an extremely windy February 2006. As one can see, the winds during winter 2005/06 were quite different from winter 2006/07. The daily wind speed profile indicates that the lowest winds of the day occur in the morning at about 3 a.m. to 9 a.m. and the highest winds of the day occur in the afternoon and early evening hours of about 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. This correlates reasonably well with the times of day where load demand is highest. Anemometer data summary 30 m A anemometer 30 m B anem. 20 m anemometer Month Mean (m/s) Max (m/s) SD (m/s) Weibull k Weibull c (m/s) Mean (m/s) Max (m/s) Mean (m/s) Max (m/s) Jan 5.79 43.6 4.33 1.38 6.34 5.82 43.9 5.46 41.6 Feb 7.74 33.2 4.65 1.74 8.71 7.75 33.6 7.23 32.1 Mar 7.07 29.4 3.59 2.05 7.96 7.03 29.8 6.55 29.1 Apr 6.13 22.6 2.96 2.19 6.93 6.00 22.9 5.66 22.6 May 5.88 20.2 2.68 2.32 6.63 5.88 19.9 5.45 19.9 Jun 5.92 19.5 2.79 2.25 6.69 5.90 19.5 5.56 19.5 Jul 6.28 20.6 2.81 2.36 7.08 6.39 21.8 5.83 20.2 Aug 5.56 16.4 2.85 2.05 6.28 5.70 16.8 5.16 16.4 Sep 5.08 24.4 2.98 1.80 5.72 5.10 24.8 4.56 24.0
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 11 of 17 Oct 7.03 26.3 3.74 1.95 7.92 7.04 26.0 6.45 25.2 Nov 7.47 27.5 3.59 2.18 8.42 7.29 27.9 6.69 26.8 Dec 5.73 21.8 2.72 2.20 6.45 5.65 22.1 5.06 21.4 Annual 6.31 43.6 3.31 2.04 7.09 6.30 43.9 5.80 41.6 Note: Max speed data are 2 second gust readings Wind profile Daily wind speed profile
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 12 of 17 Wind Shear The power law exponent was calculated at 0.197, indicating moderate wind shear at the Quinhagak met tower test site. The shear data is shown in greater detail in the accompanying seasonal, daily and directional plots of the power law exponent, or wind shear. The practical application of this data is that one can expect appreciably higher power production with increased turbine tower height. A tower height/power production cost tradeoff study is recommended. Note that some of the observed shear may be due to the presence of tanks and other structures north of the met tower test site and would not be indicative of general wind shear conditions in the Quinhagak area. Wind shear profile Probability Distribution Function The graphed probability distribution function provides a visual indication of measured wind speeds in one meter per second “bins.” Note that most wind turbines do not begin to generate power until the wind speed at hub height reached 4 m/s; using this criteria, 2 7% of Quinhagak’s winds are calm (less than 4 m/s). The black line in the graph is a best fit Weibull approximation of the wind speed distribution. At the 30 meter level, the Weibull parameters are k = 1.87 (indicates a relatively narrow distribution of wind speeds) and c = 7.18 m/s (scale factor for the Weibull distribution).
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 13 of 17 Wind Roses Quinhagak winds are directional in frequency (percent of time) from the north and to a lesser extent from the southwest, south and southeast (wind frequency rose). Interestingly though, the power of the winds (mean value by direction) indicate that the southeast winds, when they occur, are much stronger than the northerly winds. Combining the frequency rose and the mean value rose yields the third wind rose – the total value (power density) rose. This wind rose indicates frequency of power density by direction and is most important of the three for siting of turbines. To minimize wake turbulence, wind turbines should be located with due consideration of clear zones from nearby obstructions and especially other turbines. If one were to consider just the frequency rose, turbines might be placed on more of an east-west alignment. But with consideration of the total value (power density) rose, turbines should be located on a northeast to southwest alignment with plenty of clearance from obstructions located to the northwest and southeast of the turbines. Wind frequency rose (25 meters) Mean Value (power density) by direction (25 meters)
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 14 of 17 Total value (power density) rose (25 meters) Turbulence Intensity The turbulence intensity (TI) is acceptable for the north-northeast and southeast wind directions, with mean turbulence intensity of 0.091 5, indicating relatively smooth air for wind turbine operations. This turbulence intensity is calculated with a threshold wind speed of 4 m/s (only wind speeds exceeding 4 m/s are considered). The relatively high turbulence intensity to the northeast and southwest are of little consequence as essentially no power producing winds are from these directions. Turbulence Intensity Rose
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 15 of 17 Turbulence Intensity by Wind Speed Turbulence Intensity Table Turbulence Intensity Table, 30 m A anemometer , 25 m vane, 10/22/05 to 5/24/07 Bin Bin Endpoints Records SD Mean Standard Deviation Characteristic Midpoint Lower Upper In of Wind Speed Turbulence of Turbulence Turbulence (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Bin (m/s) Intensity Intensity Intensity 1 0.5 1.5 2517 0.338 0.359 0.160 0.519 2 1.5 2.5 4939 0.347 0.178 0.094 0.272 3 2.5 3.5 7687 0.375 0.127 0.058 0.185 4 3.5 4.5 9988 0.418 0.106 0.046 0.151 5 4.5 5.5 10511 0.474 0.096 0.038 0.134 6 5.5 6.5 10494 0.544 0.092 0.033 0.125 7 6.5 7.5 8962 0.621 0.090 0.032 0.121 8 7.5 8.5 6743 0.706 0.089 0.030 0.119 9 8.5 9.5 4828 0.787 0.088 0.027 0.115 10 9.5 10.5 3851 0.868 0.087 0.025 0.112 11 10.5 11.5 3067 0.959 0.088 0.024 0.112 12 11.5 12.5 2396 1.060 0.089 0.023 0.112 13 12.5 13.5 1601 1.159 0.090 0.022 0.112 14 13.5 14.5 1057 1.228 0.088 0.022 0.110 15 14.5 15.5 759 1.308 0.088 0.021 0.109
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 16 of 17 16 15.5 16.5 445 1.369 0.086 0.020 0.106 17 16.5 17.5 314 1.456 0.086 0.021 0.107 18 17.5 18.5 247 1.516 0.085 0.020 0.104 19 18.5 19.5 136 1.644 0.087 0.019 0.106 20 19.5 20.5 123 1.784 0.090 0.019 0.109 21 20.5 21.5 82 1.830 0.088 0.016 0.104 22 21.5 22.5 43 1.886 0.086 0.015 0.100 23 22.5 23.5 45 1.889 0.082 0.015 0.097 24 23.5 24.5 32 2.153 0.090 0.012 0.102 25 24.5 25.5 18 2.400 0.096 0.014 0.110 26 25.5 26.5 7 2.171 0.084 0.010 0.094 27 26.5 27.5 3 2.567 0.096 0.013 0.108 28 27.5 28.5 4 2.675 0.096 0.020 0.116 29 28.5 29.5 4 2.775 0.096 0.011 0.107 30 29.5 30.5 3 2.733 0.091 0.007 0.098 31 30.5 31.5 3 3.300 0.107 0.014 0.121 32 31.5 32.5 2 3.050 0.095 0.006 0.101 33 32.5 33.5 5 3.340 0.102 0.010 0.112 Air Temperature and Density Over the reporting period, Quinhagak had an annual average temperature of -3.9 degrees C. The minimum recorded temperature during the test period was -49.1° C (see below; possibly incorrect) and the maximum temperature 23.8° C. Note that on July 7, 2006 the temperature sensor experienced an unusual fault in that although it continued to record what appeared to be normal variations of temperature, the offset suddenly changed by approximately 30° C. This offset change (-32.8° C exactly) was added to subsequent temperature data in order to produce a best likely temperature record of Quinhagak, but because the nature of the fault is unknown, the corrective measure may be faulty to some extent. Hence, it is unlikely that the extreme low temperature data readings of -40° C and lower during the winter months of 2006/07 are completely accurate, although 2006/07 was a very cold winter in general. Despite the likelihood of error with the post 7/7/06 temperature data, it is more accurate for power density and turbine performance estimates to insert a corrective offset than to delete the faulty temperature data altogether. Consequent to the rather cool average temperature in Quinhagak, air density is rather high, boosting the nominal performance of wind turbines. The average air density in Quinhagak is 1.326 kg/m 3, approximately eight percent higher than standard sea level atmospheric air density of 1.225 kg/m 3. This density variance from standard is accounted for in turbine performance predictions in this report. Note that the density estimates, because they are based on calculations using temperature data and not direct measurement, are likely a few percent lower than actual.
Eek Wind Power Report V3 Energy LLC 17 of 17 Temperature and density table Temperature Air Density Mean (m/s) Min (m/s) Max (m/s) SD (m/s) Mean (kg/m^3) Min (kg/m^3) Max (kg/m^3) SD (kg/m^3) Jan -18.6 -49.1 4.6 13.1 1.389 1.270 1.574 0.0730 Feb -9.2 -38.6 6.5 11.0 1.339 1.261 1.504 0.0579 Mar -18.9 -45.5 9.1 14.4 1.392 1.250 1.549 0.0787 Apr -6.7 -21.0 6.1 5.6 1.324 1.263 1.399 0.0278 May 0.9 -16.7 23.8 7.4 1.288 1.188 1.375 0.0344 Jun 11.4 2.9 21.3 3.3 1.240 1.198 1.278 0.0144 Jul 7.3 -7.3 22.7 5.1 1.258 1.192 1.327 0.0227 Aug 6.9 -9.0 23.4 7.0 1.260 1.189 1.335 0.0314 Sep 5.0 -13.2 19.7 7.3 1.269 1.205 1.357 0.0336 Oct 0.1 -14.6 13.7 5.4 1.290 1.224 1.364 0.0274 Nov -12.5 -35.4 4.0 8.4 1.355 1.273 1.484 0.0441 Dec -12.3 -45.1 7.1 11.7 1.355 1.259 1.547 0.0624 Year -3.9 -49.1 23.8 13.6 1.326 1.188 1.574 0.0701 Note: low temperature and max air density data likely faulty; see explanation in text Temperature boxplot