HomeMy WebLinkAboutHope Regional Hydroelectric Study AppBERING PACIFIC ENGINEERING RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT APPLICATION
HOPE REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NOVEMBER 10, 2009 PAGE 1 OF 7
SECTION 1. - APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name Bering Pacific Engineering
Type of Entity: Private Corporation
Mailing Address 8309 Sand Lake Rd
Anchorage, AK 99502
Physical Address 8309 Sand Lake Rd
Anchorage, AK 99502
Telephone 245-8031
Fax
Email Daniel.Hertrich@gmail.com
1.1. Applicant point of contact
Name Daniel Hertrich
Title: President
Mailing Address 8309 Sand Lake Rd
Anchorage, AK 99502
Telephone 245-8031
Fax
Email Daniel.Hertrich@gmail.com
1.2. Applicant minimum requirements
As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under
AS 42.05, or
X An independent power producer, or
A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
TBA 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 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management
systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the
standards set forth in the grant agreement.
Yes If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the
attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and
submitted with the application.)
Yes We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with
grant funds for the benefit of the general public.
BERING PACIFIC ENGINEERING RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT APPLICATION
HOPE REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NOVEMBER 10, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 7
SECTION 2. - PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1. Project Title
Hope Regional Hydroelectric Study.
2.2. Project Location
Four potential small run-of-river hydroelectric sites in the Resurrection Valley near
Hope, AK. The proposed resources are Bear Creek, Palmer Creek, Cripple Creek, and
Bedrock Creek.
2.3. Project Type
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1. Renewable Resource Type
Wind Biomass or Biofuels
X Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic
Solar Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe)
2.3.2. Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Reconnaissance Design and Permitting
X Feasibility Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4. Project Description
The Resurrection Valley Projects have a combined capacity of 7.0 MW based on a
review existing maps. A reconnaissance study is required to determine the viability of
the projects and select the preferred developments.
2.5. Project Benefit
Completion of this study will benefit the railbelt utilities because it will provide the
information needed to determine whether a viable hydroelectric project can be
constructed at in Hope. The public benefit is the cost to perform the study.
Hope and Chugach Electric will realize additional benefits by having local generation
that will offset line losses and provide backup power to the community in the event the
transmission line is down. Other benefits include added renewable energy capacity for
the railbelt, improved grid efficiency, generation diversity, and reduced consumption of
dwindling natural gas supplies in Cook Inlet.
The combined energy output of all four projects is estimated to be 30,740,000 kWh.
2.6. Project Budget Overview
The cost of the regional reconnaissance study is $140,000. Of this portion, Bering
Pacific Engineering will fund provide $25,000 in in-kind work.
BERING PACIFIC ENGINEERING RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT APPLICATION
HOPE REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NOVEMBER 10, 2009 PAGE 3 OF 7
The combined construction cost of all four projects is $22,670,000.
2.7. Cost and Benefit Summary
Grant Costs
2.7.1 - Grant Funds Requested in thi s application $115,000
2.7.2 - Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $25,000
2.7.3 - Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $140,000
Project Costs & Benefits
2.7.4 - Total Project Cost (summary from cost worksheet) $22,670,000
2.7.5 - Estimated direct Financial Benefit (savings) $47,520,000
2.7.6 - Other Public Benefit (explain in section 5) $0
SECTION 3. - PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.1. Project Manager
Daniel Hertrich will be the project manager. Mr. Hertrich will be responsible for
overseeing the work, processing invoices, interfacing with the grant administrators, and
ensuring compliance with all the grant conditions.
3.2. Project Schedule
The project would be completed one after award.
3.3. Project Milestones
The basic project milestones, based on the schedule above, are the following:
· Task 1 - Perform site visits, general surveying, and install select stream
gauges.
· Task 2 - Collection and analysis of existing data
· Task 3 - Reconnaissance reports.
3.4. Project Resources
Daniel Hertrich and Joel Groves of Bering Pacific Engineering will be performing the
work on the project.
3.5. Project Communications
Mr. Hertrich will be the primary point of communications.
3.6. Project Risk
No risks have been identified at this stage of development.
BERING PACIFIC ENGINEERING RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT APPLICATION
HOPE REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NOVEMBER 10, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 7
SECTION 4. - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
4.1. Proposed Energy Resource
The Resurrection valley projects are characterized by the following preliminary
configurations:
PROJECT BEAR CREEK
PALMER
CREEK
CRIPPLE
CREEK
BEDROCK
CREEK
BASIN AREA 4.5 18.6 3.4 3.5 sq mi
INTAKE ELEV 1200 1100 1100 1250 ft
POWERHOUSE ELEV 200 400 200 250 ft
STATIC HEAD 1000 700 900 1000 ft
PROJECT FLOW 23 90 17 17 cfs
PENSTOCK DIAMETER 22 42 18 18 in
PENSTOCK LENGTH 9000 10500 7900 7800 ft
POWER OUTPUT 1370 3800 870 980 kW
COST $4,795,000 $11,400,000 $3,045,000 $3,430,000
ENERGY 6,000,000 16,640,000 3,810,000 4,290,000 kWh
ANNUAL BENEFIT $600,000 $1,664,000 $381,000 $429,000
O&M $150,000 $200,000 $150,000 $150,000
PV BENEFIT $8,820,000 $28,700,000 $4,530,000 $5,470,000
B/C RATIO 1.8 2.5 1.5 1.6
4.2. Existing Energy System
4.2.1. Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
The project is located in the south central railbelt. The Hope area is serviced by
Chugach Electric Association.
4.2.2. Existing Energy Resources Used
The south central railbelt relies predominantly on natural gas for el ectrical energy
generation.
4.2.3. Existing Energy Market
The project is located in the south central railbelt. There is clearly a desire for
renewable energy projects to be added to this area but the energy market for them is
not well defined at this time. For the economic analysis in this application, an energy
rate of $0.10 per kWh is assumed.
4.3. Proposed System
4.3.1. System Design
The physical features of each of the individual projects are typical of a run-of-river
hydro. There is small diversion wall to capture the water in the creek. This is followed
by a filtering system to remove debris and streambed material. The water is conveyed
to the pipeline which transports water to powerhouse with minimal headloss. The high
BERING PACIFIC ENGINEERING RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT APPLICATION
HOPE REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NOVEMBER 10, 2009 PAGE 5 OF 7
pressure water is fed into a turbine connected to a generator that is connected to the
electrical grid by a high voltage transformer. A rural class road is built to the
powerhouse while the intake is accessed by a construction road.
4.3.2. Land Ownership
The project is located on National Forest Service land. A Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission license will be required for each of the projects.
4.3.3. Permits
Permits for the project will involve the typical state and federal permits. The
reconnaissance study will further investigate the permitting requirements but the
following is list of the anticipated permits and approvals required for this project:
· Water Use Permit / Water Rights (ADNR)
· Land Lease/easement (ADNR)
· Fish Habitat Permit (ADFG)
· Nationwide Permit 17 for Hydropower Projects – for incidental wetlands fill and
similar matters (Army Corps of Engineers)
· Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency Review (ACMP)
· Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license (FERC)
· Archeological consultation (SHPO)
4.3.4. Environmental
Environmental issues are not known at this time. However, each project has been
selected and configured to be constructed above fish habitat. The reconnaissance
study will verify this and determine if other environmental issues may be of a concern.
4.4. Proposed New System Costs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed
Revenues)
4.4.1. Project Development Cost
Because this is a reconnaissance study, the cost for the development of each project is
simply presumed to be will between $3,000 and $3,500 per kW.
4.4.2. Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance costs for the smaller projects are estimated to be $150,000
per year with the Palmer creek project estimated at $200,000. This is based on work
done for the Fishhook Hydro.
4.4.3. Power Purchase/Sale
For the purposes of economic analysis, it is assumed that the railbelt is willing to invest
in this project at a rate of $0.10 per kWh. Future developments with other renewable
energy projects in the railbelt will determine whether this an appropriate rate.
4.4.4. Cost Worksheet
Attached is a completed cost worksheet for the project.
BERING PACIFIC ENGINEERING RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT APPLICATION
HOPE REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
NOVEMBER 10, 2009 PAGE 6 OF 7
SECTION 5. - PROJECT BENEFIT
The presumed project benefit is based on the energy it produces valued at $0.10 per
kWh, less the operation and maintenance costs, calculated as a present worth over a
30 year period with a discount rate of 3%. Additional benefits including renewable
energy tax credits and carbon credits are not included in the benefit.
SECTION 6. - SUSTAINABILITY
Hydroelectric projects have proven to be, and still are, the most sustainable power
generation investment throughout Alaska. No other generation technology has come
close to having the historical longevity and low maintenance that hydroelectric projects
do. Once the hurdle of the initial capital construction cost is overcome, the projects are
successfully maintained and renewed by all classes of communities in Alaska.
SECTION 7. - READINESS AND COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
The reconnaissance work proposed in this grant application could begin immediately
after award of the grant.
SECTION 8. - LOCAL SUPPORT
The railbelt utilities are generally in support of evaluating potentially economically viable
renewable resources to add to the railbelt generation portfolio.
SECTION 9. - GRANT BUDGET
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. 50% est
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other
iii. Generator/boilers/other type
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh]
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal]
Other
iii. Peak Load
iv. Average Load
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 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]
7,000 kW
b) Proposed Annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 30,740,000 kWh
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed Annual fuel Usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
iv. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $22,670,000
b) Development cost $1,500,000
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $650,000
d) Annual fuel cost None
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 30,740,000 kWh
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel $0.10 per kWh
c) Other economic benefits
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits $3,074,000 per year
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale 0.10 $/kWh
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio $47,520,000 / $22,670,000 = 2.1
Payback
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
Task 1 - Perform site visits, general surveying,
and install select stream gauges 9/1/2010 $40,000 $10,000 Cash and In-kind $50,000
Task 2 - Collection and analysis of existing data 3/1/2011 $45,000 $10,000 Cash and In-kind $55,000
Task 3 - analysis and reporting 6/1/2011 $30,000 $5,000 Cash and In-kind $35,000
TOTALS $115,000 $25,000 $140,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $105,000 $25,000 $130,000
Travel & Per Diem $0
Equipment $0
Materials & Supplies $10,000 $10,000
Contractual Services $0
Construction Services $0
Other $0
TOTALS $115,000 $25,000 $140,000