HomeMy WebLinkAboutIRHA Wood Heating Interior AK Grant App
Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
Grant Application
AEA 11-005 Application Page 1 of 19 7/21/2010
Application Forms and Instructions
The following forms and instructions are provided to assist you in preparing your application for
a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA)
and the forms are available online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund-IV.html
Grant Application
Form
GrantApp4.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline
of information required to submit a complete
application. Applicants should use the form to assure
all information is provided and attach additional
information as required.
Application Cost
Worksheet
Costworksheet4.doc Summary of Cost information that should be
addressed by applicants in preparing their application.
Grant Budget Form GrantBudget4.doc A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of
costs by milestone and a summary of funds available
and requested to complete the work for which funds
are being requested.
Grant Budget Form
Instructions
GrantBudgetInstructions4.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget
form.
If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application
forms for each project.
Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide
milestones and grant budget 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.
If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with
your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
REMINDER:
Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or
proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the
Authority. If you want information is to be kept confidential the applicant must:
o Request the information be kept confidential.
o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their
application.
o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept
confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a
public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon
request.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 19 7/21/2010
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Interior Regional Housing Authority
Type of Entity:
Housing authority
Mailing Address
828 27th Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99701
Physical Address
Same
Telephone
907-452-8315
Fax
907-456-8941
Email
kcarlo@irha.org
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Kimberly Carlo
Title
Energy and Weatherization Administrator
Mailing Address
828 27th Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone
907-452-8315
Fax
907-456-8941
Email
kcarlo@irha.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)
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
x 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 3 of 19 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)
Feasibility Assessments for Wood Heating in Interior Alaska Communities
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.
This proposal calls for feasibility assessments of wood-fired heating systems (e.g., Garn boilers),
including forest inventories and wood harvest assessments, in eight communities in Interior Alaska:
Hughes, Ruby, Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Nikolai, Anvik, and Holy Cross. The communities named
in this proposal were selected using two criteria: 1) the 2010 Alaska Energy Pathway identifies six of
the eight as having significant potential for fuel displacement and cost savings with a wood-fired
heating system, and 2) the communities have all held tribal and municipal meetings on this issue,
identified wood heat as an energy priority, and reached out to the applicant for assistance with a
project of this type. This “on-the-ground” support for the concept is essential to the future success of
a wood-fired heating system. The feasibility assessments and forest inventories will require the
participation of tribal and municipal governments, and will require access to public facilities in these
communities, but no on-site construction or physical impact of any kind will take place. The
community benefit will consist of a planning document that allows each community to make sound
decisions regarding future energy uses and projects.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
Wind x 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 Design and Permitting
x Feasibility Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
The eight communities named in this proposal—Hughes, Ruby, Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag,
Nikolai, Anvik, and Holy Cross—have all identified wood heating in public buildings as a
priority energy opportunity that can displace fuel oil, save the communities money, utilize
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 19 7/21/2010
locally available renewable resources, and create local employment opportunities. These
communities are interested in installing high-efficiency, low emission biomass boilers similar to
the Garn boiler system currently in use in the Tanana washeteria and other Alaska communities.
The first step in this process is the preparation of a feasibility assessment that identifies potential
buildings for wood heating, the size and type of boilers that would be required, estimated fuel
displacement and cost savings, capital cost and payback period, forest inventory and wood
harvest plan, and so on. The applicant proposes to subcontract with Dan Parrent, wood utilization
specialist of the Juneau Economic Development Council, to conduct 1- to 2-day site visits in
each community and prepare feasibility assessments for each. Parrent has extensive experience
in this area and has prepared numerous such reports for other Alaska communities. The forest
inventory and wood harvest planning work will be conducted by Will Putman, head forester for
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC). Following the completion of these reports, project staff Kim
Carlo of Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) and Ross Coen of TCC and the Alaska
Center for Energy and Power at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) will continue to
communicate with residents of the communities and facilitate their internal planning processes to
determine whether each community wants to move forward with final design and construction
phases of the respective wood-heating projects. The applicant anticipates submitting final design
and construction proposal(s) to the RE Fund (Round 5) for those communities named in this
proposal that wish to proceed.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 19 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.)
Installation of a wood-fired heating system in a public building or cluster of public buildings
would displace all or a significant portion of fuel oil that is currently being used to heat those
buildings. For example, a feasibility assessment report for Huslia that was completed in 2008
identifies a cluster of five adjacent buildings and finds that installation of a wood-heating system
could potentially displace 9,750 gallons of fuel oil ($58,500 total cost @ $6/gal) with 114 cords
of wood ($39,900 total cost @ $350/cord), for an annual cost savings of $18,600 (debt service
and non-fuel operation/maintenance costs notwithstanding). The same report finds heating the
local school with wood could result in an annual fuel cost savings of $32,350, and that a separate
cluster of three buildings has a potential cost savings of $46,550 if heated with wood. This
proposal calls for similar assessments for public buildings in eight communities. It is anticipated
the reports will show comparable potential cost savings. The 2010 Alaska Energy Pathway
identifies “short-term annual heat savings” for the study communities as follows:
Nulato: $101,000
Ruby: $75,800
Holy Cross: $24,100
Koyukuk: $15,500
Anvik: $13,100
Nikolai: $11,900
Hughes: no data
Kaltag: no data
It is expected the feasibility assessments will refine these numbers and provide a sound economic
analysis. It must be noted, however, this proposal calls only for feasibility assessments and thus
all economic benefits are projections and contingent on final design and construction phases that
are not part of this proposal. IRHA and TCC intend to work with the eight communities to seek
future funding for final design and construction in those communities with the best prospects for
a successful project.
In addition, the communities stand to benefit from the projects in that wood is a locally available
resource, and local woodcutters can be paid to harvest and process the wood. Currently these
communities purchase heating fuel from an outside vendor, which results in money leaving the
village (also known as “economic leakage”). A wood heating system would provide job
opportunities and keep money circulating within the community. Increased local demand for
biomass fuels would also improve safeguards against wildfires and enhance wildlife habitat,
especially for moose. A final benefit is that the feasibility reports will help communities plan for
their energy needs by providing information about energy options, a process that is expected to
increase local involvement in energy planning.
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 19 7/21/2010
The requested funding amount is $154,477, which includes salary support for Co-project
managers Kimberly Carlo (IRHA) and Ross Coen (TCC-UAF), TCC forester Will Putman, and
Dan Parrent of JEDC. The funding request also covers travel for Parrent to the eight
communities in the study, and for Putman to Holy Cross and Anvik, the only two communities
for which the TCC Forestry Department lacks on-the-ground sampling data. There is a modest
request for communication and outreach materials, and satellite image acquisition and processing
as part of the forest inventory work. No supplies or equipment are included in the proposal.
IRHA and TCC will bring institutional support to the project in the form of communication with
residents of the study communities. The inclusion of eight communities in a single proposal (as
opposed to eight separate applications) was an intentional decision on the part of IRHA, TCC,
and UAF. It is believed that a group approach: 1) allows the project team to combine resources,
streamline travel (i.e., site visits to multiple communities on a single trip), and reduce the overall
cost of the project, and 2) brings communities together for idea sharing and cooperation that
increases the chances of success for each.
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. $ 154,477
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ --
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $ 154,477
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)
$ n/a
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $ n/a
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.)
See Section 2.5
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 19 7/21/2010
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.
The project will be managed by Kimberly Carlo, Energy and Weatherization Administrator for
IRHA, and Ross Coen, Rural Energy Specialist for TCC and UAF (joint position). Contact
information and references are included in the attached resumes.
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 project timeline is September 1, 2011, to August 31, 2012.
Task 1: Grant administration. TCC-UAF co-PI Ross Coen will assist IRHA co-PI Kim Carlo
with set-up and administration of the grant. Duties include facilitating communication between
Alaska Energy Authority, IRHA, UAF, and TCC to manage documentation for the contract,
award, and sub-awards. Carlo and Coen will track project objectives, conduct performance
evaluation, and ensure reporting requirements are fulfilled and completed on time. This task will
place for the duration of the project (September 1, 2011 – August 31, 2012).
Task 2: Preparatory work for community wood-heating feasibility studies. Coen will contact
the eight communities named in the proposal—Hughes, Ruby, Nikolai, Holy Cross, Anvik,
Koyukuk, Kaltag, and Nulato—to schedule site visits by Dan Parrent, the consultant who will
prepare the feasibility reports, and Will Putman, TCC Forester. Coen will communicate with
Parrent and Putman to provide background information in advance of the site visits (e.g., list of
contacts and public buildings to be evaluated). Coen will work with co-PI Kim Carlo to arrange
travel for Parrent and Putman (travel costs are included in the TCC sub-award). This task will
begin with the start of the project in September 2011 and is expected to be completed by the time
site visits commence in October 2011.
Task 3: Feasibility Assessments and Forest Inventories. Parrent will travel to all eight
communities for site visits, research, data collection, and communication with local decision-
makers. Putman will travel to Anvik and Holy Cross, the only project communities for which no
on-the-ground forest inventory sampling data exists. Parrent and Putman will prepare written
reports for each community in the study. This task will begin in October 2011 and is expected to
be completed by February 2012.
Task 4: Post-assessment community follow-up. Coen will not travel with Parrent and Putman
for the assessments, but will communicate with communities during and after the assessments to
provide information and gather feedback. Coen will deliver copies of the completed assessment
reports and will present findings at a number of different venues, such as regular tribal council
meetings and the Tanana Chiefs Conference annual meeting at which delegates from these
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 19 7/21/2010
communities will be present. Coen will serve as primary point-of-contact for the duration of the
project. This task will commence upon completion of the site visits and will last for the duration
of the project.
Task 5: Final reporting. Coen and Carlo will oversee final reporting for the grant. Duties
include budget review, preparation of final report, and grant close-out. This task will be
completed by August 31, 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.)
See Section 3.2
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.
Project personnel include Dan Parrent of the Juneau Economic Development Council and Will
Putman, head forester for TCC. IRHA intends to sole source the contract with Parrent/JEDC for
the following reasons: 1) Parrent has extensive experience in evaluating community buildings for
wood-heating potential (see attached resume), and 2) he has prepared numerous wood-heating
feasibility reports for communities throughout the state, including Huslia and Tanacross, two
Interior communities similar in size and resource base to the eight named in this proposal. Will
Putman similarly has extensive experience in forestry (see attached resume) and has prepared
forest inventories for other communities in the Interior. He is currently preparing forest inventory
studies for Fort Yukon and McGrath as part of AEA-funded biomass projects in those
communities.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Personnel from IRHA and TCC are in daily communication with residents of Interior
communities, including the eight named in this proposal. The various project tasks (see Section
3.2) require regular communication with city officials, tribal officials, and other residents of the
affected communities. In addition, IRHA and TCC hold frequent board meetings, sub-regional
delegate meetings, and other gatherings at which education, outreach, and project
communication will take place. The project team has already relied on extensive communication
with Ron Brown and Devany Plentovich of AEA in preparing this application, and expects to
maintain regular contact for the duration of the project. The project team is also willing to
participate in the AEA Wood Energy Workgroup.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 19 7/21/2010
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
The project team believes the proposal is straight-forward and its scope of work narrowly
defined so that the potential for problems is minimal. There are no supplies or equipment
involved in the proposal, and no mechanical systems to install, operate, and maintain. The
proposal calls for personnel to make site visits in eight communities, conduct research, collect
data, communicate with residents, and prepare written feasibility reports. The risk is minimal.
The project team believes the greatest risk might be a sudden lack of community support.
Occasionally a city council or tribal council experiences a majority turnover in membership, for
example, and decides to oppose actions taken by the previous council. The project team does not
expect this to happen, but is aware that it occasionally does happen. In such a case, the project
team would communicate with the new council members to explain the potential economic
benefits of a wood-heating project and assure them that the feasibility study called for in this
proposal does not require a commitment on their part to install such a system or allocate funds at
any future date. In short, the project team believes any potential problem can be handled through
adequate communication and respect for local authority.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 19 7/21/2010
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.
This proposal calls for feasibility assessments of wood-fired heating systems (e.g., Garn
boilers), including forest inventories and wood harvest assessments, in eight communities in
Interior Alaska: Hughes, Ruby, Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Nikolai, Anvik, and Holy Cross.
The project team expects the completed feasibility studies to serve as a Phase 1 foundation for
future funding requests for final design and construction in those communities with the
greatest potential for a successful wood-heating project. Should the feasibility studies lead to
the final design and construction phase, the proposed energy resource is biomass (most likely
cordwood). In the example of Tanana, an Interior Alaska community that uses Garn boilers in
its washeteria, the average annual wood consumption is less than 50 cords, much of which is
driftwood harvested from the Tanana and Yukon rivers. The amount of wood required to
support a wood-heating system of this type is relatively small compared to the widespread
availability of driftwood, trees on nearby tribal lands, state forests, Bureau of Land
Management forests, and so on. Nevertheless, the communities recognize the need for a forest
management and wood harvest plan, and do not intend to simply grab wood from wherever
without regard to sustainable harvest practices. Eric Geisler of the Bureau of Land
Management, for example, has met with TCC staff and representatives from Interior
communities, and announced a national mandate to supply wood for biomass energy projects.
The BLM is therefore committed to forest stewardship contracts with communities to ensure a
long-term supply of wood. In addition, the communities named in this proposal have either
cut or are planning to cut firebreaks that will provide several years’ worth of wood for a
biomass project of this nature. The project team does not believe resource availability will be
a problem for any community named in this proposal.
The forest inventory workplan is as follows:
Level I: Utilize existing forest inventory data to the greatest extent possible.
Existing forest inventories conducted by TCC Forestry in the 1980s and 1990s will be analyzed to
provide some level of assessment of availability of woody biomass resources. Of the eight
communities proposed to have biomass feasibility studies accomplished, six have inventory
information available: Hughes (1987), Ruby (1987), Koyukuk (1987), Nulato (1990), Kaltag
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 19 7/21/2010
(1985), and Nikolai (1987).
The inventories were conducted on land selected by the respective ANCSA Native village
corporations at each community. A series of land cover type maps were prepared at each village,
with individual forest stands indentified and classified by interpretation of high-altitude color-
infrared aerial photography dating from the late 1970s. Timber volumes were estimated for
forested cover types from a field sample collected in randomly selected stands. In addition to the
type maps, each village project included a report summarizing the timber volumes. In later years,
the type maps were eventually captured in a geographic information system (GIS), and the timber
inventory data and stocking summaries are maintained in a relational tabular database, allowing
further manipulation and analysis of the data.
There are a number of serious limitations in this available forest inventory data that need to be
considered. The inventories are quite “extensive”, that is, the geographic scope was relatively
large and the intensity of the field sampling was relatively low. Forest cover types with relatively
low acreages were not field sampled at all, but were lumped into similar types that were sampled,
with resulting inaccuracies in the volume estimates. The photography used to produce the land
cover typing was a nearly a decade old at the time the inventories were conducted, and is now 30
years old or more, and does not take into account the changes that have no doubt occurred on the
landscape. The data collection was focused on the standing stock, and what little growth
information was collected is difficult to apply in any meaningful way with regard to estimates of
site and forest growth. Only the biomass represented by the main boles of trees is included in the
volume estimates, with no attention paid to whole tree biomass or non-timber species such as
alder or willow. Only the resources on lands selected by the local village corporation are
included, so other ownerships are not included in the estimates. That being said, the data
contained in those old inventory projects still provide a useful starting point for evaluation of
biomass energy resources.
Cubic-foot volume stocking estimates can be expressed in units useful for woody biomass
assessment such as tons per acre. The GIS can be used to evaluate the location and amounts of the
resource relative to the village (proximity), and current or projected costs associated with
harvesting and transport could be modeled to get a rough handle on woody biomass costs to be
incorporated into the overall biomass feasibility study. This phase of the project is strictly an
office exercise involving manipulation and analysis of existing data.
Level 0: No existing inventory data exists
This option is to be applied to Holy Cross and Anvik, where no forest inventory information that
can be applied to biomass resource assessment exists. No entity has remotely-sensed imagery
(satellite imagery or digital aerial photography) for these villages, and TCC has not conducted
any land cover classification work, field sampling, local timber volume stocking estimates, etc.
Satellite image acquisition and processing is required to get these village studies to the level
where the work described in “Level 1” above can be performed.
Public buildings in these communities are currently heated with fuel oil that is purchased from an
outside vendor and either barged or flown to the community at great expense. Switching over to
wood heat stands to save the communities money, utilize a local resource, provide job
opportunities for local residents (e.g., woodcutters, boiler technician), and keep money circulating
within the community. Potential downsides include unregulated, unsustainable woodcutting in
sensitive areas (i.e., moose habitat). This downside can be avoided with careful forest
management practices.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 19 7/21/2010
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 public buildings to be evaluated for possible wood-heating are currently heated with fuel oil
and a boiler that delivers either forced-air or hot-water heating. Some buildings (e.g., tribal halls)
may also have conventional wood stoves and in rare cases electric heaters are used. Of the eight
communities proposed for study, all have co-located public buildings that currently operate as
stand-alone units from a space heating perspective. One of the challenges in planning for
alternative sources of heat is that the information about the existing systems (e.g., “number, size,
age, efficiency, and type of generation”) is largely anecdotal and not collected by a single entity.
In Hughes, for example, the information for the school, city building, and washeteria may be
known to those three entities—the school district, city government, and tribal council—but is
neither shared nor collected in a single repository. The feasibility assessments called for in this
proposal aim to remedy that situation by collecting comprehensive energy system data for a suite
of public buildings, which will enable comprehensive energy planning that involves each separate
entity.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
The existing energy resource for space heating in these communities is fuel oil (typically #1).
Should the feasibility reports lead to project construction in any of these communities, it is
anticipated that resource would be at least partially displaced by wood. The impacts would be
uniformly positive: reduce heating costs, create jobs, keep money from leaving the community,
wildfire protection, wildlife habitat enhancement, and greater local involvement in energy issues.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Converting the heating systems from fuel oil to wood is expected to lower energy costs. In cases
where space heating is provided by recovered waste heat from the local power plant, the
feasibility assessment would include data on integrating those systems. In Ruby, for example, the
new power plant is expected to deliver recovered heat to the washeteria—thus the focus for
wood-heating might be on the school that is located too far from the power plant for recovered
heat to be a viable option. It bears mentioning again that this proposal calls only for feasibility
assessments. It will not result in construction and installation of a new energy system, thus actual
impacts are only projections.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 19 7/21/2010
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
The proposal calls for study of high efficiency low emission (HELE) biomass boilers and their
potential application in eight Interior Alaska communities. The Alaska Wood Energy
Development Task Group has identified a number of boiler manufacturers (e.g., Garn, Tarm,
Greenwood) with proven products that are expected to meet the pending EPA emissions
regulations. A typical wood-fired heating system consists of boiler(s), boiler building, wood
storage building, and plumbing and connections. Heat distribution is typically achieved via hot
water delivery. It is not possible to determine exact system characteristics in advance of the
feasibility reports called for in this proposal, but for the purposes of evaluating the proposal we
offer the example of Huslia, as determined in a 2008 feasibility report prepared by Dan Parrent of
JEDC. That report finds that for the Jimmy Huntington School in Huslia, the required boiler
capacity is 559,629 Btu/hr, which can be met with two Garn WHS 3200 units. The estimated
building and equipment costs (estimates provided in the original report are not price quotes but
are for discussion purposes only) are:
Wood storage building: …………………$79,600 (3,980 sq. ft. @ $20/sq. ft.)
Boiler building: …………………………$60,000 (400 sq. ft. @ $150/sq. ft.)
Boilers (base price): …………………….$65,800 (Dectra Corp.)
Boilers (shipping and bush delivery): ….$15,000 (estimated)
Plumbing/connections: …………………$40,000 (estimated)
Installation: ……………………………..$25,000 (estimated)
Contingency (25%): …………………….$71,350
Total: ……………………………………$356,750
The above proposed system must also take into account labor costs and non-fuel OM&R costs
(estimated at $9,227 and $12,646, respectively). Converting to such a system requires higher
upfront costs and greater OM&R costs than those for a traditional fuel-based system, but for a
viable project the payback time may be relatively short.
The project team also intends to include discussion of the “boiler-in-a-box” concept being
developed by AEA for the community of Stebbins. The applicant believes this concept might
reduce system costs and simplify the installation process.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 14 of 19 7/21/2010
project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
This proposal calls only for feasibility assessments of wood-fired heating systems that may or
may not be constructed at some future date. There are no land ownership issues at this time. Each
feasibility assessment will evaluate land ownership, however, as part of the assessment of wood
heating applications. Should this project lead to a design and construction phase, the site-selection
for the wood-fired boilers will require negotiation with land owners. Since the proposal is looking
at public buildings, the land owner in most cases will be a city government or tribal council. This
proposal has the support of the communities and negotiating land issues with regard to placement
of the boilers is not expected to pose problems.
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
N/A
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 proposal will have no negative impact on wildlife, habitat, wetlands, archaeological and
historical resources, land development, telecommunications, or aviation operations. The proposal
calls only for feasibility assessments, and no impacts are expected. The only foreseeable impact
would occur in a subsequent design and construction phase, and would be aesthetic in that the
infrastructure would be visible to residents.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 15 of 19 7/21/2010
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
This proposal does not call for construction of a new energy system. For this reason, the question
of system costs and projected revenues is largely moot. Nevertheless, the applicant refers the
Selection Committee to cost estimates listed in Section 4.3.1 only for discussion and evaluation
purposes. These estimates do not represent actual costs.
Heating system comprised of 2 Garn WHS 3200 units (proposed system for Huslia school)
Buildings and Equipment: $356,750
Labor: $9,227
Non-fuel OM&R: $12,646
Fuel oil displaced: 17,000 gal
Potential cost savings from displaced fuel: $102,000
Equivalent cords of wood: 199 cords
Cost of wood @ $350/cord: $69,650
Potential savings (fuel cost - wood cost): $32,350
Simple payback period: 11.03 years
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.)
See Section 4.4.1
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
Should the feasibility assessments lead to final design, construction, and operation of a wood-
fired heating system at some future date, any space heating purchase/sale agreements would have
to be negotiated between the owner/operator of the system and the owners of the buildings to
which the heat is supplied. Since this proposal calls only for feasibility studies, it is premature to
comment on power purchase/sale at this time.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 16 of 19 7/21/2010
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
See attached.
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
Installation of a wood-fired heating system in a public building or cluster of public buildings
would displace all or a significant portion of fuel oil that is currently being used to heat those
buildings. For example, a feasibility report for Huslia that was completed in 2008 identifies a
cluster of five adjacent buildings and finds that installation of a wood-heating system could
potentially displace 9,750 gallons of fuel ($58,500 total cost @ $6/gal) with 114 cords of wood
($39,900 total cost @ $350/cord), for an annual cost savings of $18,600 (debt service and non-
fuel operation/maintenance costs notwithstanding). The same report finds heating the local school
with wood could result in an annual savings of $32,350, and that a separate cluster of three
buildings has a potential cost savings of $46,550 if heated with wood. This proposal calls for
similar assessments for public buildings in eight rural communities. It is expected the reports will
show comparable potential cost savings. The 2010 Alaska Energy Pathway identifies “short-term
annual heat savings” for the study communities as follows:
Nulato: $101,000
Ruby: $75,800
Holy Cross: $24,100
Koyukuk: $15,500
Anvik: $13,100
Nikolai: $11,900
Hughes: no data
Kaltag: no data
It is expected the feasibility assessments will refine these numbers and provide a sound economic
analysis. It must be noted, however, this proposal calls only for feasibility assessments and thus
all economic benefits are projections and contingent on final design and construction phases that
are not part of this proposal. IRHA and TCC intend to work with the eight communities to seek
future funding for final design and construction in those communities with the best prospects for a
successful project.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 17 of 19 7/21/2010
The economic potential of a wood-fired district heating system typically improves with as heating
demand or “load” increases; heating multiple buildings in close proximity to one another by a
central heat plant (i.e., district heating system) would likely return better economic metrics than
several small individual stand-alone (i.e., “distributed”) heat plants. In Anvik, for example, the
clinic, washeteria, city office, and tribal hall are clustered together and could be tied into the same
heating system. In Hughes, the school, city/tribal office, washeteria, and tribal office building are
similarly co-located. In Holy Cross, the school, tribal office, teacher housing, and proposed new
tribal hall are also co-located. The applicant believes expects the feasibility reports assessments
will be able to not only identify potential “district” wood-heating applications, and but also
prioritize them based on economic benefit to the respective communities.
The communities stand to benefit from the projects in that wood is a locally available resource,
and local woodcutters can be paid to harvest the wood. Currently these communities purchase
heating fuel from an outside vendor, which results in money leaving the village. A wood heating
system would provide job opportunities and keep money circulating within the community. In
addition, increased local demand for biomass fuels will provide opportunities to improve local
safeguards against wildfires, and enhanced wildlife habitat (primarily for moose, an important
local source of protein).
A final benefit is that the feasibility assessments will help communities plan for their energy
needs by providing information about energy options, a process that is expected to increase local
involvement in energy planning.
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
This proposal calls only for feasibility studies assessments of wood-fired heating systems and
locally available biomass resources. Inasmuch as this proposal does not call for actual construction
of biomass heating systems, business structure, financial considerations, maintenance and
operational issues are not included in any great detail. However, some of these issues (OM&R and
financial metrics, for example) will be included in the reports. The issues of sustainability (as
regards forest [biomass] resources) will be addressed in that section of the report and are not
applicable at this time.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 18 of 19 7/21/2010
meet the requirements of previous grants.
The eight communities included in this proposal have all participated in extensive planning
processes that led them to consider wood heating in public buildings. IRHA and TCC have led
energy planning sessions in the communities (with funding from AEA and U.S. DOE). IRHA and
TCC also have extensive experience in implementing grants and contracts in the region. Most
recently, the applicants have implemented federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grants, a process that demonstrates readiness and organizational capacity to implement the
award. The project team is prepared to begin work on the award immediately once the award is
made.
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 applicant has directly communicated with tribal councils, city governments, school officials,
and other residents. The eight communities named in this proposal are committed to this
feasibility phase. The communities understand that participating in the feasibility phase in no way
commits them to any subsequent project phase, nor does it commit them to expenditure of funds
for any future project phase. Letters of support from the respective tribal councils are attached.
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
See attached.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 19 of 19 7/21/2010
SECTION 9 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A. Contact information, resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners,
consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4.
B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4.
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 9.
D. Letters demonstrating local support per application form Section 8.
E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD per RFA Section 1.6.
F. Authorized Signers Form.
G. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant’s
governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that:
- Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the
match amounts indicated in the application.
- Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to
commit the organization to the obligations under the grant.
- Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this
application.
- Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local,
laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
H. CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful
and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply
with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
Print Name Irene Catalone
Signature /s/ Irene Catalone (see PDF for actual signature page)
Title Chief Executive Officer
Date 9/14/2010