The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNapaskiak Utility AEA Round 3(2) Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Grant Application November 10, 2009 City of Napaskiak-Napaskiak Utility City of Napaskiak Wind Study 11/10/2009 Grant Administrator: Butch White Selection Committee Alaska Energy Authority AEA-10-015 – RE Fund Grant Application Round 3 813 West Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 RE: Renewable Energy Fund Grant Recommendation Program Round III Dear Butch White: The City of Napaskiak – Napaskiak Electric Utility is pleased to submit a proposal for the City of Napaskiak’s Wind Study the in Napaskiak, Alaska. We are requesting $144,301.00 through the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Recommendation Program Round III Program. Napaskiak has been identified as needing high cost of energy assistance and as having a potential cost-benefit ratio of 1.36. by the Alaska Energy Authority. The City of Napaskiak wants to operate and own a sustainable, green, and supplementary power system to offset the ever increasing high cost of energy the village endures. The City Napaskiak has collectively decided they want to become less dependent on the variable price of diesel fuel, lessen the environmental risks of transport up their River and on site storage hazards and costs by reducing diesel fuel consumption to power their community. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Carl Maxie Utility Manager Encl. Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Grant Application AEA 10-015 Application Page 1 of 27 10/7/2009 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.akenergy authority.org/RE_Fund-III.html Grant Application Form GrantApp3.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 Costworksheet3 .doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed by applicants in preparing their application. Grant Budget Form GrantBudget3.d oc 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 GrantBudgetInst ructions3.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 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 2 of 27 10/7/2009 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) City of Napaskiak-Napaskiak Electric Utility Type of Entity: 2nd Class City Mailing Address P.O. Box 6109 Napaskiak, AK 99559-6109 Physical Address Napaskiak, Alaska Telephone 907-737-7626 Fax 907-737-7412 Email Carl_Maxie@yahoo.com 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT Name Carl Maxie Title City of Napaskiak Electric Utility Manager Mailing Address P.O. Box 6109 Napaskiak, AK 99559-6109 Telephone (907) 727-7432 Fax 907-737-7412 Email Carl_Maxie@yahoo.com 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or X A local government, or A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); Yes or No 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 or No 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 or No 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 or No 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 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 3 of 27 10/7/2009 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) City of Napaskiak Wind Study 2.2 Project Location – Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project. The City of Napaskiak is located on the east bank of the Kuskokwim River, along the Napaskiak Slough, 7 miles southeast of Bethel. It lies at approximately 60.708060 North Latitude and - 161.766110 West Longitude. (Sec. 08, T007N, R071W, Seward Meridian.) The incorporated City of Napaskiak and its 435 residents will benefit from the outcome of this wind study. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 4 of 27 10/7/2009 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) X 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 City of Napaskiak requests funding for a Wind Study as the first and second steps towards supplementing the high cost of diesel generators currently in use. This Wind Study will satisfy Phases I, Reconnaissance and Phase II, Feasibility of the AEA’s basic outline of the Wind Resource Development Partnering Plan Procurement. The study will result in a feasibility report on the benefits, costs and guidelines of implementing the next three phases of a wind turbine system, both in terms of a stand-alone system operated independently by Napaskiak Electric Utility, and in the context of a possible sub-regional intertie. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 5 of 27 10/7/2009 2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, etc.) This proposed Wind Study will provide the information the City of Napaskiak requires to carry out the next 3 phases of the desired Wind Turbine Project both successfully and according to AEA’s recommended procedures. This study will lead to the village being able to operate and own a sustainable, green, and supplementary power system to offset the high cost of energy the village endures. Based on research done by AEA, Napaskiak’s wind power potential is similar to surrounding communities (Bethel and Kasigluk) with existing wind power. The cost of power is generally 3 to 5 times higher for rural Alaskans. Napaskiak has been paying close to 4$ per gallon of fuel since 2008. Rural fuel prices are extremely volatile and much higher rates have been seen in the past 5 years. The logistics of getting fuel to Napaskiak by barge and the large amount needed on an annual basis due to the long, dark winters is not only a cost issue but an environmental one. Napaskiak stands to dramatically decrease their carbon footprint by including wind power in their energy plan. Due to the high cost of fuel, Napaskiak qualifies for the Power Cost Equilization program. Adding Wind power will ultimately lessen the burden on this program and the State of Alaska. 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. Napaskiak is requesting $144,301.00 in funds from AEA. Other contributions will include in kind efforts of Napaskiak administrative staff to pursue this and future efforts for the next phases. Napaskiak Incorporated has agreed to offer land for the wind study met tower, and for the future site of the wind turbines. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 6 of 27 10/7/2009 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. $144,301.00 2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $00.00 2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $144,301.00 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) $144,301.00 2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $163,127.00 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.) $ N/A Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 7 of 27 10/7/2009 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 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 Manager for this Wind Study will be John Lyons or Robert Harris of MarshCreek LLC. Mr. Lyons has 30 years of power generation and distribution design. Mr. Harris has more than 20 years of electrical engineering experience in power systems. Utility manager Carl Maxie will be closely involved with all aspects of the project, present and future. Resumes are attached. The City of Napaskiak welcomes any AEA recommendations. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 8 of 27 10/7/2009 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.) This Wind Study is expected to take 1-2 years. The Table below represents the projected schedule. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 9 of 27 10/7/2009 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.) Key tasks for this Wind Study will be: Reconnaissance 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation. Napaskiak has identified Marsh Creek LLC as the contractor for this Wind Study. Initial contact has been made. Napaskiak Electric Utility (NEA) has worked successfully with MarshCreek LLC this past year installing new generators. 2. Resource identification and analysis Wind in Napaskiak has been identified by AEA as Class 5. Further analysis will be performed by the Wind Study. 3. Land use, permitting, and environmental analysis Land Use, permitting and environmental analysis will be addressed in the Wind Study. Napaskiak Incorporated has agreed to donate land for the Met Tower and Wind Turbine location. 4. Preliminary design analysis and cost Preliminary design analysis and cost will be determined by the Wind Study made possible by this grant. 5. Cost of energy and market analysis Napaskiak has been identified as needing high cost of energy assistance by the AEA. The Utility received a PCE credit of 438,051kwH in 2008. The Alaska Energy Plan has identified Napaskiak as having a potential cost-benefit ratio of 1.36. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 10 of 27 10/7/2009 Napaskiak’s 2008 PCE Statistics 6. Simple economic analysis The AEA projected cost savings and cost-benefit ratio (1.36) will be refined using data collected from the wind study. 7. Final report and recommendations Final Report and recommendations will be delivered two years from the start date of the Wind Study by Marsh Creek, LLC. Feasibility 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation. Napaskiak has identified Marsh Creek LLC as the contractor for this Wind Study. Initial contact has been made. Napaskiak Electric Utility (NEA) has worked successfully with MarshCreek LLC this past year installing new generators. MarshCreek LLC is suited to integrate the diesel power and wind power together for the community. 2. Detailed energy resource analysis MarshCreek LLC will provide this analysis as a result of the Wind Study. 3. Identification of land and regulatory issues, MarshCreek LLC will provide this analysis as a result of the Wind Study. 4. Permitting and environmental analysis MarshCreek LLC will provide this analysis as a result of the Wind Study. The environmental permitting will be subcontracted. Initial inquiries to 5. Detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets MarshCreek LLC will provide this analysis as a result of the Wind Study. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 11 of 27 10/7/2009 6. Assessment of alternatives MarshCreek LLC will provide this analysis as a result of the Wind Study. 7. Conceptual design analysis and cost estimate MarshCreek LLC will provide this analysis as a result of the Wind Study. 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. The contractor for this project, the Wind Study will be MarshCreek LLC, with a subcontractor for the environmental consulting. Resumes and Company profiles are attached. In addition the Napskiak Electric Utility will outsource project accounting and grant financial reporting to a firm competitively selected as a result of an RFP. The RFP for these services will be advertised once a grant agreement is in place. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 12 of 27 10/7/2009 3.5 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Carl Maxie, the Napskiak Electric Manager will serve as the point of contact and will be intimately involved in all aspects of the wind study, as well as future phases of this project, including post construction operation and management. Mr. Maxie has worked with MarshCreek LLC on the existing system and has a good rapport with the Project Managers there. The City of Napaskiak has a current sustainable record keeping in place that will carry over to this project. Reporting requirements established by the AEA will be carried out in a timely manner. The City intends to issue an RFP to outsource project accounting and reporting services for the feasibility and subsequent design and construction phases of the project. In addition, progress reports can be submitted to the AEA to communicate the study progress if the AEA desires so. An example of an in-house progress report follows. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 13 of 27 10/7/2009 EXAMPLE PROGRESS REPORT 1.AEA Award #: Name of Recipient: 2. Project Title: Project Director: 3. Date of Report: Period Covered by Report: 4. A comparison of the actual accomplishments w/the goals and objectives established for the period. Detail reasons why the established goals were not met. Goals Actual Accomplishments Objectives Actual Accomplishments 5. A discussion of what was accomplished under the goals during this reporting period, including major activities, significant results, major findings or conclusions, key outcomes or other achievements. Note: Contact Project Director for further information Goals Key Outputs and Outcomes 6. Cost status. Show approved budget by budget period and actual costs incurred. Approved Budget for Period Actual Costs Incurred 7. Schedule status. If you submitted a project management plan w/your application you must use this plan to report schedule and budget variance. You may use your own project management system to provide this information. Milestone Anticipated Completion Dates Actual Completion Date N/A – Project Not Started Yet 8. List any changes in approach or aims and the reasons for change. – N/A 9. List actual or anticipated delays and actions taken or planned to resolve them. – N/A 10. List and absence or changes of key personnel or changes in consortium/teaming arrangement. N/A 11.Describe any product produced or technology transfer activities accomplished during this period such as: (delete list below to enter your data) video, software or None Anticipated Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 14 of 27 10/7/2009 3.6 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. There is the risk that the wind study will show that the cost-benefit ratio is not more then 1.0. By following the approved AEA phases, and awarded funding in increments based on milestones, Napaskiak reduces the risk of overinvesting if the wind study should prove that the wind resource is not sufficient to warrant further phases. However, all preliminary data and research suggest that Napaskiak is indeed a good candidate for a wind supplemented power utility. In addition, by analyzing possible sub-regional approached to renewable energy development, prospects; feasibility may be improved when economics of scale for installation, operations and maintenance are factored in. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 15 of 27 10/7/2009 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. Napaskiak is strongly influenced by storms and patterns in the Bering Sea and also by inland continental weather. Average annual precipitation is 16 inches, with 50 inches of snowfall. Summer temperatures range from 42 to 62, winter temperatures are -2 to 19. The average wind speed in Napaskiak is 7.5 mph and has been identified as Class 5 winds. The Alaska Energy Plan says “Due to the high cost of diesel-fired electrical generation in rural Alaska, wind turbines may be economical in some rural Alaskan communities with a wind power class of 3 or above”. Location of Napaskiak is seven miles southwest of Bethel, Alaska Image extracted from the Alsaka High Resolution Wind Map Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 16 of 27 10/7/2009 The 2009 Alaska Energy Model Community Report evaluated Napaskiak with the potential wind resource below. Extracted from the Alaska Energy Community Profile Report 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. Napaskiak is well aware that a wind-diesel power system is only as good as the diesel generator it is combined with. The new generators just installed will work very well with the fluctuating power produced by a wind turbine. See attached drawing for a schematic of the upgrades. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 17 of 27 10/7/2009 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. In 2008 Napaskiak used 72,556 gallons of fuel. Wind turbines at Napaskiak have the potential of saving 32,000 gallons of fuel annually. This number was arrived at by dividing AEA projected savings by $5.00 per gallon for fuel. The impact of not using as much fuel goes beyond significant savings by reducing the carbon foot print of the village. 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. The Alaska Energy Plan (AEP) states that to “maximize the economic value of wind resource development, the recommended program focuses on systematically reducing the uncertainty associated with the initial market value estimates”. Napaskiak will impact its customers positively by assuring the benefit to cost ratio is either an attractive or potentially attractive wind source. Per the AEP, “The National Wind Coordinating Council recommends that construction funds should not be committed until a final project feasibility assessment is made based upon detailed site specific reconnaissance and at least two to three years of detailed local wind data at the proposed Site”. It is hopeful that with AEA’s previous research and approval this wind study can be conducted in two years. Napaskiak will commit to the approved phases of effort, such that the uncertainty of the future wind turbine project will be greatly reduced over time. Napaskiak’s energy use for 2008: kwH Generated: 961,245 kwH Sold: 775,180 Gallons Diesel Consumed: 72,556 The average cost of fuel for 2008-2009 has been $4 per gallon, but has been as high as $5 per gallon. The existing price per kwH is 0.73 cents. According to the AEP, the anticipated cost of a wind- diesel system would be 0.53 cents per kwH. This project will impact the energy customers in substantial savings. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 18 of 27 10/7/2009 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 City of Napaskiak will use the Wind Study to determine the appropriate system and system design. MarshCreek LLC has extensive experience with system design and has offered three different turbines systems as a possibility for Napaskiak. See attached documentation for specifications on the suggested systems. MarshCreek LLC has identified 4 possible systems to be used at the Napaskiak Wind Turbine site. • Remanufactured Vestas V-27 • Northern 100 • Nordtank 300kW Wind • Micon M530-250W Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 19 of 27 10/7/2009 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. The Met tower will be erected on the potential wind turbine site as determined by the reconnaissance phase of this study. A land use resolution was written and signed at a 2008 community hall meeting in Napaskiak. Napaskiak Incorporated has agreed to use suitable corporation land for the Met Tower and future wind turbines location. The community has selected a site within the recommended one mile radius from the existing power plant. The site is at a higher elevation, out of FAA range and on good solid ground above the flood plain. At this time, there are no access issues. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 20 of 27 10/7/2009 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 A permitting plan will be addressed concurrently and as a result of the Wind Study. The City of Napaskiak will follow the Study as it progresses so that any permitting issues can be pursued in a timely fashion, so as not to delay further development of the project. 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 Environmental assessment and permitting on all of the above will be addressed in the wind study. Napaskiak has been advised that wind turbines can be an endangerment to birds, and may require extensive and often expensive studies. The Wind Study will include a subcontract for environmental consulting. The community local knowledge base feels that the site location they have chosen is in the best interest of the environment. Napaskiak used the Best Management Practices described by the “Guidelines for Building and Operating Wind Energy Facilities in Alaska” when they chose the site. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 21 of 27 10/7/2009 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 The Wind Study will need to be completed before cost and revenues can be fully developed. However, the AEA Energy Model Community preliminary study has estimated the Wind Farm capital costs at Napaskiak to be $2, 438,000. Overall annual savings are predicted at $163,127. This study phase will cost $144,301.00. Detailed project development costs will be developed by MarshCreek, LLC as a result of the feasibility study. Napaskiak expects to follow the Alaska Energy Plans approach to reducing Project Cost Capitol based on the benefit to cost outcome derived by the energy plan highlighted in yellow. Table Extracted From the Alaska Energy Plan (Chapter 3, Page 8) Napaskiak benefits from having access to both tribal as well as municipal grant funds. The City, Tribe and Village corporation operate under a United Council to coordinate development and collaborate on funding of local infrastructure projects. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 22 of 27 10/7/2009 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.) AEA estimated the O & M costs for a Wind—Diesel system in Napaskiak to be $31,934 in 2002. Currently the O & M costs at the diesel plant are not recoverable. The city is unable to charge an energy rate that will cover the O & M costs because the customers can not afford energy at that cost. A more accurate estimate of Wind-Diesel O & M costs will be developed by the Wind Study. Combining wind into the diesel system will allow the Utility to keep energy pricing affordable to residents without losing money on its O & M costs. 4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range • Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project The Wind Study will identify power/purchase sale information accurately. The power buyers consist of 97 residential customers, and 5 community facilities. AEA estimates that Wind-Diesel cost of energy as potentially $0.53 per kwH. The AEP has provided the potential cost range of power from a wind-diesel system. The cost of displaced fuel will be used as a pricing method for Napaskiak. Table Extracted From Alaska Energy Plan (Chapter 3, Page 22) Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 23 of 27 10/7/2009 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. MarshCreek LLC provided the costs for the wind study and pricing for wind turbines. Sources sited for potential wind energy savings and costs came from the AEP document downloaded from the AEA site. 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 According to the AEP study, The City of Napaskiak has the potential to save $163,127, or 32,000 gallons in displaced fuel annually. There have been no Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or cost based rates for the proposed wind-diesel system developed at this time. On a non-economic level the people of Napaskiak have collectively decided they want to become less dependent on the variable price of diesel fuel, lessen the Environmental risks of transport up their River and on site storage hazards by requiring less diesel fuel to power their community. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 24 of 27 10/7/2009 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 The Napaskiak Electric Utility currently operates the power plant and electrical distribution system in Napaskiak. The Utility will incorporate an O & M surcharge into its rate structure to recoup the costs of operating and maintaining the renewable energy infrastructure. Actual O & M costs will be determined once specifications are developed for the wind turbines to be installed as a result of this study. There will be a learning curve in operating the proposed wind-diesel system. Adequate training and support will be budgeted during additional phases. Selection of the wind turbine system will take into account surrounding communities systems already in existence. This will positively contribute to the wind market penetration to support trained personnel. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 25 of 27 10/7/2009 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. Napaskiak has demonstrated its managerial and financial capacity as seen in the attached RUBA Status Report. The City of Napaskiak recently took over management of the utilities and met all RUBA essential management indicators. The City has proven itself a realistic and reliable self governing entity. The diesel power system has recently been upgraded in anticipation of integrating wind into the power system. The City of Napaskiak received a grant from the AEA to fund this new diesel system. See attached supporting documentation. 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 City of Napaskiak came together three years ago in pursuit of integrating wind power into their existing diesel system. There has been no opposition to this project. The community also supported the upgrade of the diesel plant in 2008 funded by an AEA grant. See attached letters of support. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 26 of 27 10/7/2009 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 The expected cost of the feasibility study is $144,301. The City of Napaskiak-Napaskiak Electric Utility respectfully asks AEA to fund the entire project. The Grant Budget Form is attached. Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 10-7-09 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. TBD; Based on AEA potential of CBR 1.36 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 2 ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other iii. Generator/boilers/other type iv. Age of generators/boilers/other Upgraded one year ago v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor 138,635.18 ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor 232,888.01 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] 916,245 ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 72,556 Other iii. Peak Load See attached iv. Average Load v. Minimum Load vi. Efficiency See attached vii. Future trends d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] N/A 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 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 10-7-09 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) [kWh or MMBtu/hr] Wind b) Proposed Annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] TBD by feasibility study 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 TBD, AEA estimated $2.3 million b) Development cost TBD c) Annual O&M cost of new system AEA estimated $30k annually d) Annual fuel cost 75k gallons currently consumed x $5/gallon = $375,000 5. Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity Based on AEA estimated savings of $167k annually divided by $5/gallon = 33,400 gallons of fuel displaced/saved for electrical production ii. Heat iii. Transportation b) Price of displaced fuel Assumes $5/gallon, price varies from $4-$5/gallon c) Other economic benefits TBD by feasibility study d) Amount of Alaska public benefits TBD by feasibility study 6. Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale TBD by feasibility study 7. Project Analysis a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio TBD, ranges from less than 1 to 1.35; class 5 wind resource Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 10-7-09 Payback $2.3 million / $167k per year savings = approximately 14 year pay back period Consumption in 200 kW-hr/galCurrent efficiency 11.85 77,735 Current Fuel Costs $405,419 gal $0.73 kW-hours799,010 Total Estimated Local Fuel cost @ $110/bbl $5.22 kW91 Fuel COE $0.51 Fuel Oil:97% Wood:0% Electricity:0.0% 2008 Estimated Heating Fuel used:88,366 Estimated Diesel:31,611 Estimated heating fuel cost/gallon $6.22 $/MMBtu delivered to user $56.37 Total Heating Oil $549,228 Total Transportation $196,475 Transportation (Estimated) gal Estimated cost $6.22 Energy Total $1,328,948 2000 Census Data Est OM $0.02 NF COE:$0.20 Space Heating (Estimated) gal Total Electric $583,246 Average Load Estimated Diesel OM $15,980 Other Non-Fuel Costs:$161,846 Electric (Estimates based on PCE) Average Sales Current Energy Status /kw-hr /kw-hr /kw-hr /kw-hr PCE Community heat needs in MMBtu 10,604 Estimated peak loa 182.42 kW Acheivable efficiency kW- New Fuel use 65,798 $343,164 $53,879 $0.61 Savings Diesel Engine Heat Recovery Water Jacket 11,660 gal 14 Stack Heat 0 gal Upgrade needed: Powerhouse Upgrade Status Pending Heat Recovery System Installed?N Is it working now?N BLDGs connected and working: None Possible Upgrades to Current Power Plant Power Plant - Performance Improvement to higher efficiency New fuel cost New cost of electricity per kW-hr Value $72,473 $0 Savings $45,972 Annual Capital cost $8,377 Annual ID $21,393 Capital cost $100,000 Capital cost $255,391 $0.02Estimated Diesel OM $15,980 /kw-hr$0.01 $0.43 Avg Non-Fuel Costs:$177,827 $0.20 Annual OM $5,108 Total Annual costs $26,501 Heat cost $20.57 $/MMBtu Calista Corporation Page 399 of 900Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Napaskiak RESUMES and COMPANY PROFILES . GRANT BUDGET and CITY OF NAPASKIAK- NAPASKIAK ELECTRIC UTILITY FINANCIALS Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09 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 (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Attached Milestone list. ) $ $ $ The budget estimates assumes reconnaissance & feasibility occur simultaneously. See attached estimate from Marsh Creek LLC $ $ $ R1, F1 + Site Logistics & Equipment (Met Tower); Month 1 $33,350 $ $33,350 R2, R3, R5, R6 + F3 (Preliminary Analysis) Month 3 $11,201 $ $11,201 R4 + F7, F9 (Preliminary/Conceptual Design, Cost Estimates, Business & Operations Plans) Month 6 $18,550 $ $18,550 F4 (Permitting & Environmental Analysis) Months 2-12 $39,000 $ $39,000 F2, F5, F6, F8 (In-depth analysis) Month 13 $20,300 $ $20,300 R7, F7 FINAL REPORT Month 13+ $11,900 $ $11,900 Project Accounting/Reporting (Outsourced) Months 1-13 $10,000 $ $10,000 $ $ TOTALS $144,301 $144,301 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $ $ $ Travel & Per Diem $ $ $ Equipment $ $ $ Materials & Supplies $ $ $ Contractual Services $144,301 $ $144,301 Construction Services $ $ $ Other $ $ $ TOTALS $144,301 $ $144,301 Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, and Construction)- Add additional pages as needed Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09 Project Milestones that should be addressed in Budget Proposal Reconnaissance Feasibility Design and Permitting Construction 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation. 2. Resource identification and analysis 3. Land use, permitting, and environmental analysis 5. Preliminary design analysis and cost 4. Cost of energy and market analysis 5. Simple economic analysis 6. Final report and recommendations 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation. 2. Detailed energy resource analysis 3. Identification of land and regulatory issues, 4. Permitting and environmental analysis 5. Detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets 6. Assessment of alternatives 7. Conceptual design analysis and cost estimate 8. Detailed economic and financial analysis 9, Conceptual business and operations plans 10. Final report and recommendations 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation for planning and design 2. Permit applications (as needed) 3. Final environmental assessment and mitigation plans (as needed) 4. Resolution of land use, right of way issues 5. Permit approvals 6. Final system design 7. Engineers cost estimate 8. Updated economic and financial analysis 9. Negotiated power sales agreements with approved rates 10. Final business and operational plan 1. Confirmation that all design and feasibility requirements are complete. 2. Completion of bid documents 3. Contractor/vendor selection and award 4. Construction Phases – Each project will have unique construction phases, limitations, and schedule constraints which should be identified by the grantee 5. Integration and testing 6. Decommissioning old systems 7. Final Acceptance, Commissioning and Start-up 8. Operations Reporting NAPASKIAK WIND STUDY COST PROJECTION DURATION COST Reconnaissance 1 Project scoping and contractor solicitation 12 hours $2,100.00 2 Resource identification and analysis.8 hours 1,400.00 * Site Logistics 3,800.00 * Equipment Requirements 25,000.00 3 Land use, permitting, and environmental analysis 21 hours 3,675.00 4 Preliminary design analysis and cost 22 hours 3,850.00 5 Cost of energy and market analysis 15 hours 2,626.00 6 Simple economic analysis 8 hours 1,400.00 7 Final report and recommendations 38 hours 6,650.00 TOTAL RECONNAISSANCE COST $50,501.00 Feasibility 1 Project scoping and contractor solicitation 14 hours $2,450.00 2 Detailed energy resource analysis 20 hours 3,500.00 3 Identification of land and regulatory issues 12 hours 2,100.00 4 Permitting and environmental analysis 80 hours 14,000.00 5 Detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets 26 HOURS 4,550.00 6 Assessment of alternatives 30 hours 5,250.00 7 Conceptual design analysis & cost estimate 60 hours 10,500.00 8 Detailed economic and financial analysis 40 hours 7,000.00 9 Conceptual business and operations plans 24 hours 4,200.00 10 Final report and recommendations 30 hours 5,250.00 TOTAL FEASIBILITY COST $58,800.00 TOTAL WIND STUDY COST $109,301.00 Note: Excludes Cost by Solstice or others for bird study or other permitting outside the wind study requirements. MC/Napaskiak Wind Study 11/9/09 RESOLUTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT v\J()pagkla~ ~MOJtPOhated F'lo. Sox. aces Napaskiak. Alasks QU5SS (907) ?~7.7413 . January 28. 2008 Napaskiak Utility Cdr1 Maxie Utility ::vraJ.1agel' Re: Land use Napaskiak InCQrporllted supports the formation of the Joint Gro"L!P, and it's eff011 to apply for, secure and obtau1 f\Inding to install High-Penetration Wind Turbines in the neal' future. '·Napaskiak InCOl'Porated has agreed with the Utility Con1pany to use the land J seleoted for testing purposes of the Willd Ttlrblne. It is in the best interest of the Corporation to reduce the ellergy cost of the low-illcome people in the Natlve village of Napaskiak. If you should have an,y Questions 01' comments" please feel [(oct to contact the GeneralManager@ 737..7413. Thank you. , . , Sil'lCel'ely, ... 1e Larson, General Manager .' . " Ul1ified Council of Napasldak Meeting January 23. 200fi Co.manity Hall 6p1li . I. Meetqca11ed to order at 6:25pm. Roll Call: (City Council) Present: Vioe-Mayor Timothy Jacob, Secretary Laura Evan, Members: Peter Wil1i~ Nutuia Clark and Riebard. Larlmlt Sr. n. Reacting ofAaetida: Tribal Chief Chris Larson read the agenda and made additiofts. Apndaapproved with additions made. DL 'CatlMa:xle, Utility Me...and ro-chairman Noah Okoviak: :Itom the Napakiak Electrio Utility Board alons With Tribal Chlef Chris LarSon auended the Wmd Energy workihop in BmbcI on.January 10-11, 2008 ift Bethel. Carl is appointed to run the ,m.mna fbrwaided by Chris. catl'-:Ma1de'~'to the ~l Wbat wI1\d turbines are. Wind tutbilltJ8 would immenJeiy help tJ:i(.; ge.u8ratOf use ..fuel; URns wmines would also, cut the expenses for both the butineu aDd ~,He ~'ursea COUJiciJ to help Hnall OOI1ltl'iUnitioa in OUt reaioa. h II ofgreat benefit to:tlle'ci::mut1uaity ItWind tUrbines are used in the village. ·Citl'~wect a:drawio; ofhow the buUdins ,wllllook like. Same vil1asea OIl the YK del1a realon ,~e'at_yputQa_,atd iUtalled the Wind Turbines which immensely helps with the cost ·~tm'tOt:bothbulinea8 and customer. , \,¥~, Wilfneed'to obtain an' land eaeem~nt from the Napaskiak Incorporated with approwl aignaurres ~;~a~bUWH' "and iD&tal1" 'lOwen. " .\W,. ~~"". OS ana . ,,~:__stl·~wc·do a wind study for Napaskiak. Carl is reviewi.q the application for wind , . ~,t~•••EIIIDieat prosram and will sUbmit to ead1 cmtity. . ':Pb{llip,toId' thO'utility D'MJtUt88f that if' he puts hl a letter for the lancl t he should have no problem. .. ,. ~•.it. Ch;ri.•,:~·that one member ftom each entity So to a meeting ill Aacborap. Carl · :~.~the coUncil a draft resolution which states that the mWied council approves the ... Wi$t.~....... Bach eIIdty il in support atthe wind 1WbIne. PbiWp~that the ·~oounci1 vot~..for the NIOlution: V~e~'~t:1'OIO~:In aupport: Tribal Cltiefehris I.iIrsoD: 'Yes 'FribIJ CouncifJames Paul: Yes · Utility Member: ~.Larson: Yes City'~il: . · V'd~:Ti~Jacob!Yes ~:I..aw-a':8V1Jl ~~er.p"WWlams: Yes · ~er:'N'aata.CJark::Y88 Meinber'lUohlrd I..arIoA: yea" The tJiiified CQUDCil cOuld bcrepresented by each council ~mber. Chril suaaests to choose ·~.-\De JieXt IDIietiDs wbeD all of tile Tribal aDd Napaskiak 1ae memDen an; preaem. ~ne'is'in agreemontwith this. This committee a need fOt' an MOA is not nced~. Mattle ......'·tbIIt an tho crrtitin work toiethe.r, working together makes tbinp haJlpen. . · Meeting adj~at 7:40pm. . ---~.,-. --~-....-.,,-,,-' ..-.-~--,-, VII' .-....-'.-. ...... 11""1 til 1'lnJl"'+T t"'oi""'l ...... .., t"'IIt"'foo """"'i"'I Unified Council of Napaskiak Napaskiak, Alaska 99559 RESOLUTION NO. 01-08 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTINO ENERGY REDUCTION COST EFFORTS BY INSTALLING WIND TURBINES AND E~ROY EFFICIENT-GENERATORS WITH WASTE HEAT RECOVERY TO CHURCH AND LOCAL SCHOOL THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT AND EFFORTS OF UNIFIED COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY OF NAPASKIAK. WHEREAS: The City QfN~paskiak is a Municipal Government, The Native Vi!lage of Napaskiak. is a Federlll Reeognize<;i VU1a~e Government, and 'WHEREAS; The high cost of Fuel and living is steeply increased by t.lte location of our village in remote western area, to include Electricity. tranlportatlon. and WHEREAS: We are cot'1stantly trying to decrease the cost of producing electricity to. the , low-inoome community and increase efficiency for the benefit of our consumers, and WHEREAS: The Unified Council of Napaskiak is being formed by the organizations of Napaskiak and carry out these efforts, and WHEREAS: The Unified. Council of Napaskiak directs the Deputy Director-Rural Energy Mike· Harper of Alaska Energy Authority to implem.ent the needs to reduoe energy for the benefit of our community and appoint a representative to point of contact with AEAlAIDBA Alternative Energy Proirams for Community of Napukiak, and . . Now THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VEO THAT, The City of Napaskiak. The Native VlH.age ofNa~88kiak, Napasklak Incorporated supports the formation of the Joint Group (Unified Council of Napaskiak) and its efforts to apply fOf. secure and. obtain funding to instill High-Penetration Wind Turbines in the near future-starting now in·our community of Napaskia¥ to r~duce electrical costs in an environmental friendly manner, and BE IT FURnIER RESOLVED THAT, The City of Napaskiak, .The Native Village of Napaskiak will address the necessary issues to bring this project effort to tuition. 'f CERTIFICATION: The foregoing reso1ution was passed and a.pproved by the duly convened meeting of the City of Napasl4iak. Native VUlage of Napaskiak, Napaskiak 'Inc., this 23 rd , Day of "I vote ofYES·ll, NO-none, and none-ABSTAINING. . ~.$~' y ity paskiak Chief-Native Village ofNapaslciak oseph C. Bevilla . Chris G. Larson -C3i1(k~'~._+-_____ Chairman-Napa.skiak Inc. Phillip Nicholai Jr. January 200 ~~~~""~.~II-...-- • ..1 ~;.~-;:';'w"."___ '__"_~__.._~.____~,.•__,_. _ '~_'__ '_._"._" Cl ••• ' __ 1. ___ ,1_ ••• , ..--.... ------... _ NA). ... 8KIAK TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. Box 6009 Napaskiak, Alaska 99559 (907) 737-7364 • Fax (907) 737-7039 January 29, 2008 RE: Letter of Support Honorable Lel~latora-:llfiQ:li As per my 'ftlllA1I!.w 0 f Napaskiak f9~~8;t;:qiak efforts to look into Napaskiak. FOI any qUC~~0D8 letter. Thank you fOr llln~;;Illlll.g Respectfully SUbmitted~ / J ~,¥~~fo J;P~ .y:J~~ ~ Chris G. Larson Barl Samuelson James Paul Nicholas Evan Evan WUliams ' 'Chief ~ Vioe.Chief Secretary Member Member Cc: file _._._.____••______....... _cM___ ' __'_ ._-,-._.' ....._-,-_... """ t"ni"'Jlf""IellnI"'oT UI'. • -'1f"Io"-1""1"1 • ., II' P.O. BOX 6109 NAPASKIAK. ALASKA 99659 • <'fJanuatY'29, 2008 .~:. . lW: Letter ofS~ .. ' 't .HODorabl~·~~.'"R.epresentatiWI; In :sUpPott ofthe~'Of the City ofNapa.ldak Bl~ric Uti1ity~ we the City Councilman}la'ftl fully aareed . \1jdi:COftiins·.~with the Native Village ofNapaakiak to fbrm a Unified Council. \:> .' " . , .~ ..1;: J;,/ . . ~-ourftrsf meetitt8 as a VO:tfted CQl.U1Cit. we tWa1liftloully asree4 upot1 dctcidiq to ......,,~atld. .·~~~:'~~.~itirthe AIaaka Energy Authority for fimdb,s to~hase2 new meI., emeieat~'',. '.. ·Ihi'~:~.wen 88 waste heat recovery lOthe ohurch Md the Local sohool. . .. '.,'.. ' , ~.:tlieiii.l~ co~tS.of·i\t.tt the use ofwi11d turbiDes wlll help with reducit1s bigh ~ecaica1 monthly bills fqt , ~~me famitiea. The purobue of2 tlCW generatOl1l will help with safety 'F~~.t.~''Wi1l resolye our ~ti.on for tbct long-tenn IOlution, we on i81dq the lesislators to appropriate .. . ~.~•.{)UF ~.en«&Y effi~y project». Without this appropriation, Napaskiak will have to .:,:~~~101iUtt~&JatY fUel at very bight cost». k>se p1amled efticiencies 8ftd delay any cc0l10dli08fO'A'dl.i~~. •.. .. :;~~i~~;~·hesitaSe.to.caU·1hc'City Clerk or the Adminittrator with any qutJltionl you may have. '1'haf2k.,du: t"::' , . ' : o'::. .' ~ ., Phone: (907)i31-76~ FiK; (9G.'>137-1412 ~.... . , Alaska Energy Community Model Excerpts (Napaskiak and Kasigluk) Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round I (Jan-09) I ~)ALASKA -=:::) ENERGY AUTHORITY App #113 Napaskiak Wind Farm Feasibility Study Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Napaskiak Utility (electric) -City of Napaskiak AEA Program Manager: James Jensen Applicant Type: Utility Economic Analysis Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) (AEA) Napaskiak Electric Utility is requesting funding for the feasibility study of a wind fann. Since the applicant did not provide generation projections or project cost estimates, all following data are based on AEA assumptions. The total project cost is $2,500,000. The B/C ratio is 1.36. Total project cost in present value terms are $2.36 million. The present value benefits are calculated as $3.2 million. The amount of displaced fossil fuel is 38,699 gal/year. Page 435 of 444 Napaskiak Energy Used .Transportation Electric 41%44% 15% Total: $3,071 Per capita Heat $1,266 Per capita POPULATION: 434 Transportation $453 Per capita Electricity: $1,353 Per capita O 3 0.4 O.S 0.6 0 7 0.2' ": 0.8 o 0.1 j I ;1 50.54 • Wind/Dle<.iel 50.72 • Diesel ($llO/bbl) Electricity $/kWh (Including fixed cost of electricity. GI'\\!~1!I: lns llt..n 'S()I~ cruoOE Yellow nO/bIJIl(1 :usa1""' ,,"tle. ~d GF\i!al~r 1'\;!!n U50/11bhmlk> 30 4~ 50 ~O 7~: o ~100 $149.5 Wind \ J $33.27 • Wood $56.24 • Fuel on (SllO/bbl) Heat $/mmBTU VVednesday, January 14,2009 Napaskiak Calista Corporation Page 397 of 900 Regional Corporation Calista Corporation Napaskiak House 38 Senate: S POPULATION 434 LATITUDE: 60d 42m N LONGITUDE: 161d 54m Unorganized LOCATION Napaskiak is located on the east bank of the Kuskokwim River, along the Napaskiak Slough, 7 miles southeast of Bethel. ECONOMY The school, local businesses and some commercial fishing provide employment. 39 residents hold commercial fishing permits for salmon drift netting. Subsistence activities are a part of the culture and supplement cash earnings. HISTORY The area has historically been occupied by Yup'ik Eskimos. Napaskiak was first reported by the U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey in 1867. The 1880 U.S. Census reported a population of 196. By 1890, the numbers had dropped to 97, and were as low as 67 in 1939. The City was incorporated in 1971. Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Napaskiak Calista Corporation Page 398 of 900 Current Energy Status PCE Estimated Local Fuel cost@ $110/bbl $5.22Electric (Estimates based on PCE) Ikw-hr Current efficiency Consumption in 200 Average Load Estimated peak loa 11.85 kW--hr/gal 77,735 gal 91 kW 182.42 kW FuelCOE Est OM NFCOE: Total $0.51 $0.02 $0.20 $0.73 Ikw-hr Ikw-hr Ikw-hr Estimated Diesel OM Other Non-Fuel Costs: Current Fuel Costs Total Electric $15,980 $161,846 $405,419 Average Sales 799,010 kW..hours $583,246 Space Heating (Estimated) 2000 Census Data 2008 Estimated Heating Fuel used: 88,366 gal Fuel Oil: 97% Estimated heating fuel cost/gallon $6.22 Wood: 0",(, $IMMBtu delivered to user $56..37 Total Heating 011 Bectricity: 0.0% Community heat needs in MMBtu 10,604 $549,228 Transportation (Estimated) Total Transportation Estimated Diesel: 31,611 gal Estimated cost $6.22 $196,475 Energy Total $1,328,948 Possible Upgrades to Current Power Plant Power Plant -Performance Improvement to higher efficiency Upgrade needed: capital cost $100,000 Powerhouse Upgrade Annual Capital cost $8,377 $0.. 01 Ikw-hr Status Pending Estimated Diesel OM $15,980 $0..02 New fuel cost $343,164 $0..43 Savings Acheivable efficiency 14 kW- Avg Non-Fuel Costs: $177,827 $0..20 New Fuel use 65,798 $53,879 New cost of electricity $0.61 kW-hr Diesel Engine Heat Recovery Heat Recovery System Installed? N Capital cost $255,391 Is it working now? N AnnuallD $21,393 BLDGs connected and working: AnnualOM $5,108 None Value Total Annual costs $26,501 Savings Water Jacket 11,660 gal $72,473 Heat cost $20.57 $/MMBtu $45,972Stack Heat o gal $0 Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Napaskiak Calista Corporation Page 399 of 900 Wind Diesel Hybrid Installed KW 300 Capital cost $2,438,000 Annual Capital $163,872 Annual OM $31,934 Total Annual Cost $195,806 5 7.50 Wind Class Avg wind speed m/s $0.29 Met Tower?no yes $0.00 kW-hr/year 680659 Homer Data? Fuel cost:$0 $0.05 per kW-hr New Community COE $0.53 $163,127 Savings $0.24 Heat Cost $/MMBtu : $84.29 (includes non-fuel and diesel costs) Non-Fuel Costs $0.22 Alternative COE: $0.51 % Community energy 85% $70.54 $13.75 Alternative Energy Resources Tidal: Wave: Coal Bed Methane: Natural Gas: Coal: $/cord$225 Other Resources Biomass For Heat Wood (cordwood or willows) Garn heater installed cost $500,000 Annual ID $33,608 Hours per year 6000 Heat Deliverd:425000 BTU/hr Cords/day:1.8 Capital per MMBt $13.18 Total per MMBT $33.27 Fuel cost per MMBtu $20.09 Annual Heat 24.0% Napaskiak Propane: Renewable Fund Project List: A project titled: Napaskiak Wind Farm Feasibility Study has been submitted by: Napaskiak Utility (electric) - City of Napaskiak for a Wind Diesel Hybrid project. For detailed information, consult the AEA web site. akenergyauthority.org Calista Corporation Page 400 of 900Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Napaskiak Regional Corporation Calista CorporationKasigluk House 38 Senate: S POPULATION 545 LATITUDE: 60d 52m N LONGITUDE: 162d 32m Unorganized LOCATION Kasigluk is on the Johnson River in the Kuskokwim River Delta, 26 miles northwest of Bethel. The community is comprised of Old and New Kasigluk, surrounded by the Johnson River and a network of lakes. ECONOMY The school, commercial fishing, retail businesses and village government provide the majority of employment in Kasigluk. Subsistence activities contribute significantly to household diets. 46 residents hold commercial fishing permits, mainly for salmon set net and herring roe fisheries. Poor fish returns and prices in recent years have affected the ecnomy, HISTORY It is an Eskimo village listed as one of the "Tundra Villages" in the 1939 U.s, Census, with a population of 66. A post office was established in 1962, It incorporated as a city in 1982, but was dissolved on Oct. 21, 1996 in favor of the traditional village council. Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Kasigluk Calista Corporation Page 350 of 900 Current Energy Status PCE Electric (Estimates based on PCE) Estimated Local Fuel cost @ $11 O/bbl Ikw-hr $4.87 Current efficiency Consumption in 200 Average Load Estimated peak loa 13.72 kW-hr/gal 154,079 gal 151 kW 301.57 kW Fuel COE Est OM NFCOE: Total $0.57 $0.02 $0.26 $0.85 Ikw·hr Ikw-hr Ikw·hr Estimated Diesel OM Other Non-Fuel Costs: Current Fuel Costs Total Electric $26,417 $343,425 $750,981 Average Sales 1,320,865 kW·hours $1,120,823 Space Heating (Estimated) 2000 Census Data 2008 Estimated Heating Fuel used: 142,016 gal Fuel Oil: 100% Estimated heating fuel cosUgalion $5.87 Wood: 0% $IMMBtu delivered to user $53.28 Total Heating Oil Electricity: 0.0% Community heat needs in MMBtu 17,042 $834,203 Transportation (Estimated) Total Transportation Estimated Diesel: 50,803 gal Estimated cost $5.87 $298,419 Energy Total $2,253,446 Possible Upgrades to Current Power Plant Power Plant -Performance Improvement to higher efficiency Upgrade needed: Capital cost $7,500 Semiannual Circuit Rider Annual Capital cost $628 $0.00 Ikw-hr Status Completed Estimated Diesel OM $26,417 $0.02 New fuel cost $736,001 $0.56 Savings Acheivable efficiency 14 kW- Avg Non·Fuel Costs: $369,842 $0.26 New Fuel use 151,006 $14,351 New cost of electricity $0.63 perkW-hr Diesel Engine Heat Recovery Heat Recovery System Installed? Y Capital cost $422,194 Is it working now? Y Annual 10 $35,366 BLDGs connected and working: Annual OM $8,444 Powerhouse Only Value Total Annual costs $43,810 Savings Water Jacket 23,112 gal $135,759 Heat cost $17.15 $lMMBtuStack Heat o gal $0 $91,949 Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Kasigluk Calista Corporation Page 351 of 900 Alternative Energy Resources Wind Diesel Hybrid Installed KW 500 kW-hrfyear 1132041 Met Tower? no Horner Data? yes WindClass 6 Avg wind speed 8.10 mls Capital cost Annual Capital Annual OM Fueicost: Total Annual Cost $3,674,330 per kW-hr $246,973 $0.22 $53,111 $0.05 $0 $0.00 $300,084 $0.27 Non-Fuel Costs $0.28 Alternative COE: $0.55 % Community energy 86% New Community COE $0.57 (irldude$ rIOI'HueJ and diesel costs) Heat Cost $/MMBtu, $63.92 $13.75 $n.67 Savings $366,161 Biomass For Heat Gam heater installed cost $500,000 Heat Deliverd: 425000 BTUfhr Annual 10 $33,608 Cordsfday: 1.8 Capital per MMBt $13.18 Hours per year 6000 Fuel cost per MMBtu $20.09 Wood (cordwood or willows) $225 $Icord Total per MMBT Annual Heat $33.27 15.0% Other Resources Kasigluk Tidal: Wave: Coal Bed Methane: Natural Gas: Coal: Propane: Renewable Fund Project List: For detailed information, consult the AEA web site. akenergyauthority.org Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Kasigluk Calista Corporation Page 352 of 900