HomeMy WebLinkAboutPort Frederick Appendices
APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity
2. Corporate Resolution
3. Project Maps
4. Project Description
5. Schedule
6. Permits & Licenses
7. Resume’s
8. Cost Worksheet
9. Grant Budget Form
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY
CORPORATE RESOLUTION
PROJECT MAPS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT SUMMARY
(i) PROJECT TITLE: PORT FREDERICK TIDAL POWER PROJECT
(ii) APPLICANT
(a)(1) Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) is a rural small business with 226
full and part-time employees. AP&T’s W-3 summary from Tax Year 2008 is enclosed in
Attachment 3. AP&T’s corporate headquarters is in Port Townsend, Washington, but the
25 communities AP&T presently provides electricity to are located in Alaska. AP&T’s
DUNS # is 002836666 and EIN is 92-0028045.
(a)(2) AP&T is a corporation that is employee owned (ESOP) by citizens of the U.S.
(a)(3) AP&T is more than 51% owned by U.S. citizens.
(a)(4) AP&T has no outstanding judgment by a Federal court against it, nor is delinquent
on a federal debt. AP&T has not been debarred from receiving Federal assistance and
has not received any other grants or loans for this project nor any funds from this
program for any other project. AP&T has received grant funding for other projects from
other programs in the past. If costs exceed $200,000 for the feasibility analysis and
therefore the 25% funding REAP is willing to provide (i.e. $50,000) then AP&T reserves
the right to seek additional funding through either State or Federal programs.
(iii) PROJECT ELIGIBILITY
(a) This application is to conduct a feasibility study for a renewable energy project. A
preliminary permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been
applied for and once a permit is received the feasibility study would move forward.
Once a feasibility analysis has been completed, design and construction could be
pursued.
(b) Components for this type of project are commercially available. The concept for a
two-basin tidal development has existed for at least 40 years (it is discussed in
Handbook of Applied Hydraulics, Davis & Sorensen, Third Edition, 1969).
However, to AP&T’s knowledge, an actual generating facility using this two-basin
concept has never been constructed, possibly due to the reduced head that occurs
with a two-basin scheme. In the last several years new turbines have been
developed that would allow generation with very low heads, and thus a two-basin
scheme may now be economical. During the feasibility analysis phase an effort will
be made to answer this critical question. If this proves feasible, other sites in Alaska
would benefit from this concept.
(c) Technical merit:
(A) Qualifications – The feasibility team will be lead by AP&T’s civil
engineer Larry Coupe, P.E. who will have the assistance of Ben Beste,
Mechanical Engineer, and Bob Berreth, Electrical Engineer. All members
are certified by the State of Alaska. All three engineers have extensive
backgrounds in hydroelectric project design and construction. Their
resumes are enclosed with this document.
(B) Agreements and permits – AP&T has applied to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit, which secures the site
and provides three years to develop a license application. Once this
permit is secured, AP&T will for permits from the U.S. Forest Service and
Alaska Department of Natural Resources to allow field investigations of
the site. AP&T proposes that at the end of this three year preliminary
permit we would apply for a license with FERC and then possibly begin
construction in approximately 2015.
(C) Energy or Resource Assessment – A preliminary evaluation of the site
indicates a project capacity of approximately 400 kW and an annual
generation of potentially 2.7 GWh/year, which would supply about 50%
of Hoonah’s present energy needs. Feasibility studies will refine the
potential energy production and environmental studies will identify any
potential restrictions that could be imposed on the project.
(D) Design & Engineering – Described below:
o Site Reconnaissance - - AP&T will visit the site to determine the local
setting and evaluate physical constraints that are not apparent from the
current map-based assessments.
o Topographic Mapping - - Topographic mapping of the Project site will
be obtained by LIDAR or conventional photogrammetry. Data
collection flights will be made during a low tide period.
o Bathymetric Surveys - - Topography of the North Bight and South
Bight basins will be derived from bathymetric surveys using boat-
based GPS and depth-sounding equipment.
o Tide Gage - - AP&T will install a gage in the Project area to determine
any variation of the actual local tides from the predicted tides for
Hoonah. The gage will be operated for a minimum of one year.
o Geotechnical Investigations - - AP&T will contract with a qualified
geologist or geotechnical engineer for a site reconnaissance. If the
reconnaissance determines that a thorough characterization of the
ground composition requires further investigation, then AP&T will
conduct such studies (such as seismic refraction surveys and core
borings). Because the North Bight Closure Dike will be by far the
most expensive component of the Project, the geotechnical
investigations will pay particular attention to that area.
o Power Studies - - AP&T will numerically model the operation of
various configurations of the proposed Project and determine the
corresponding optimum capacity and energy output.
o Optimization of Project Features - - AP&T will evaluate various
configurations of the Project features to determine the most feasible.
The optimization studies will include estimation of various quantities
and costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY
o Scoping of environmental issues, including meeting with resources
agencies and the public.
o Preparation of study plans to address the environmental issues
determined during scoping.
o Field and office studies in accordance with the approved study plans.
The full scope of the environmental studies to be conducted for the
Project cannot be determined at this time, but are likely to include:
Collection of water samples over a one-year period, and analysis
of potential water quality impacts due to restricted flows in the
bays
Studies to determine the existing use of the bays by fish,
wildlife, and marine plants, and analysis of potential impacts
due to modified water levels.
Studies to determine past and present cultural use of the bays,
and analysis of potential construction impacts to significant
heritage resources.
Evaluation of potential impacts to geological and soil resources
(based on the geotechnical investigations conducted for the
technical feasibility evaluation).
Surveys to determine existing recreational uses of the Project
area and evaluation of impacts due to Project development.
Computer simulation of the project overlain on photographs to
indicate the potential impacts to aesthetics.
(E) Project Development Schedule – The feasibility study will begin after
receipt of the FERC preliminary permit, which is expected about January
1, 2010. Scoping and study planning will begin immediately with the
intent of conducting much of field work during the summer of 2010. Key
activities to take place during this period are listed above in (D) Design &
Engineering. The feasibility study will be completed and the report
transmitted to REAP by December 31, 2011. If the study indicates a
sufficient degree of feasibility, AP&T will prepare and submit an
application for license before expiration of the preliminary permit.
(F) Project Economic Assessment – AP&T anticipates that revenues would be
derived from power sales to Inland Passage Electric Company
(IPEC)(power supplier for Hoonah), and possibly from aquaculture in the
Project embayments. AP&T will compare the potential revenues and
estimated Project costs with varying financing conditions to determine the
Project’s feasibility. It is possible that the Project will be economically
feasible only if grant funding is available, in which case the analysis will
assess the potential for obtaining such funds.
(G) Equipment Procurement – This would be just for the feasibility analysis,
which will require a tidal gage to be placed at the project site. Equipment
for future project development is commercially available, i.e. turbine, but
will not be procured until later in the project design and licensing process.
Submarine cable and other electrical components are also commercially
available and AP&T has experience with these components.
(H) Equipment Installation – This application is for feasibility analysis funding
and will not have site development and system installation at this time.
(I) Operation & Maintenance – This application is for feasibility analysis
funding and will not have any O&M in this phase.
(J) Dismantling & Disposal of Project Components – This application is for
feasibility analysis funding and therefore will not address dismantling &
disposal at this time.
(d) This project is located near the remote, rural Alaskan community of Hoonah (pop.
860)(source American Fact Finder 2000 census). This project would serve this
community to replace its diesel generation.
(e) AP&T expects to be the project owner, however at this time only a feasibility study
is proposed to be conducted.
(f) Acquiring the FERC preliminary permit will provide site control for this project.
The land surrounding the project site is currently managed by the USFS. Other
project components would be on State land. A USFS Special-Use Permit and
Alaska DNR permits will also be required.
(g) A rate will be established to recover project costs from the rate payers in Hoonah
while providing them with less expensive electricity than they are currently paying
for.
(iv) OPERATION DESCRIPTION
AP&T provides electricity to 25 rural Alaskan communities using a combination of
hydroelectric power and diesel generation. AP&T owns, operates, and maintains all its
energy sources and the infrastructure to distribute the electricity to businesses and
residents. Most of these communities are isolated from each other requiring isolated,
local grids and energy sources. Since 1995, AP&T has constructed two storage
hydroelectric projects and two run-of-river hydroelectric projects and operates a total of
six hydroelectric projects. The community of Hoonah (pop. 860) of which 60% are
Alaskan Natives, in 2007, 13.9% of the population lived under the poverty level.1
Hoonah presently relies on diesel generation to meet all its electrical needs. The Port
Frederick Tidal Power Project would eliminate some or all of its diesel use. This
renewable energy development is in line with AP&T’s present operations and business
development plan to get Alaska off of diesel generation as its primary energy source.
AP&T has gone from 5% renewable energy production in 1957 to 70% renewable energy
production today while expanding our service base.
AP&T has staff certified as electrical, civil, and mechanical engineers and are responsible
for the designing, ordering materials, and construction of diversion structures, power
1 Data from U.S. Census Bureau.
plants, turbines, generators, switchgear, SCADA networks, transmission lines, etc.
AP&T’s facilities are well maintained and our operations and construction personnel are
among the best in the industry. We have a consistent history of excellent performance in
reliability, customer service, and a reputation for being a low cost provider of electric
service.
AP&T also has proven administrators that are responsible for multi-million dollar
budgets, which includes managing over 60 employees, equipment, and management of all
generation and distribution resources. These budgets also included in recent years
several 50% grant funded projects for installation of transmission lines and three RUS
100% grants for the installation of transmission lines.
Other experience:
1995, completed construction of the 4.5 MW Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric
Project
1998, completed construction of the 4.0 MW Goat Lake
Hydroelectric Project and installed a 15 mile 34.5 kV submarine
cable
2000-2001 installed 35 miles of 34.5 kV line
2002, started installing another 43 miles of 34.5 kV line
2003, upgraded 6 miles of 19.9kV single phase line to 3 phase 34.5kV
2003-2004, built 7 miles of new 34.5 kV 3-phase transmission line, 3.5 miles
of 12.47 kV 3-phase distribution line, and upgraded 3.6 miles of 7.2 kV
single-phase line to 12.47 kV 3-phase distribution
2004-2005, built 22 miles of 34.5 kV transmission line, installed a 750 kV
substation, and installed a 300 kV pole-mounted step-down transformer bank
2005, installed a 750 kV substation, built 1 mile of 3-phase 4.16 kV
distribution, and installed a 2500 kV substation
2005-2006, designed, engineered, permitted, and constructed the 2.0 MW
run-of-river South Fork Hydroelectric Project
2006-2007, installed 11 miles of 34.5 kV transmission line and 19 miles of
buried 34.5 kV transmission line for two different projects
2006-2008, designed, engineered, permitted/licensed and constructed the 3.0
MW run-of-river Kasidaya Creek Hydroelectric Project.
As can be seen from the summary of experience above, AP&T has trained personnel to
meet the needs of an electrical utility as well as a developer of hydroelectric projects.
AP&T’s experienced engineering staff has been involved in the design, construction and
operation of hydroelectric projects since the 1980’s, which includes their experience
before employment with AP&T. Some outside contractors are consulted when certain
project components are outside AP&T’s expertise or equipment and materials need to be
used or manufactured. Locals and journeyman with specialties such as blasting would be
hired to help with labor to eventually construct the project, but during the feasibility
phase most labor will be from AP&T’s civil engineer and possibly local hire to maintain
stream gages. This project fits in with AP&T’s history of providing renewable energy to
remote Alaskan communities, getting them off of diesel generation.
(v) FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR SIZE DETERMINATION
Enclosed is a copy of AP&T’s W-3 Form for year 2008 showing the number of
employees. Also enclosed are an Independent Auditors Report and Consolidated
Financial Statement for 2007-2008 and a managers report for the first six months of 2009
with balance sheet and income statement in Attachment 3.
(4) FINANCIAL INFORMATION
(i) Historical Financial Statements – Enclosed in Attachment 3 are an Independent
Auditors Report and Consolidated Financial Statement for 2007-2008 and the first six
month Managers Report of 2009 describing the financial situation of the company.
(ii) Current Balance Sheet and Income Statement – Enclosed is a copy of the first six
month Managers Report for 2009 with balance sheet and income statement meeting the
“within 90 days” criteria.
(iii) Pro Forma Balance Sheet – This project is not far enough along (feasibility analysis)
to determine the necessary start-up capital, operating capital, and short-term credit, or the
projected cash flow.
(iv) Demonstration of Financial Need – Small communities such as Hoonah with a
population of 860 and a 13% poverty level do not provide a normal rate of return for
investment in capital projects such as this. In fact, financial reimbursement would be too
slow to warrant such a project. The only way these remote, small and isolated, rural
communities will ever get off of diesel generation is if investment comes in to construct a
renewable energy project and the only way that will occur is if grant funding is available.
The return on investment for the private sector is too slow.
(5) MATCHING FUNDS DOCUMENTATION
AP&T will provide the matching funds equaling 75%(+) of the feasibility costs, which
would equal $150,000(+) for AP&T and $50,000 from this grant program (REAP). Costs
that exceed $200,000 for feasibility studies may be paid for through other grants if
available, but AP&T is the only entity providing the 75% matching funds for this grant.
A spread sheet is enclosed.
(6) SELF EVALUATION SCORE
(e) Evaluation Criteria
(1) Quantity of Energy Replaced, Produced, or Saved
(i) Energy Replacement – This is not for our self-use.
(ii) Energy Savings – This is not an energy efficiency improvement project.
(iii) Energy Generation – This project is a renewable energy generation project to replace
diesel generation that is used in Hoonah. Once a feasibility analysis is completed and if
the project looks favorable, we would discuss with the Inland Passage Electric Company
(IPEC) a power sales agreement to pay for the energy, but would also reduce the
consumer’s electric rates. SCORE: 10
(2) Environmental Benefits – Although this project is for a feasibility study, if this
project is feasible it would lead to the reduction of diesel generation, which would have
environmental benefits, i.e. less air pollution from gases and particulate matter, less
chance for spills and leaks that could affect ground water as well as marine waters and
reduced greenhouse gas emissions. These would be in line with Federal guidelines.
SCORE: 10
(3) Commercial Availability – The system and components that would be used are
currently commercially available and replicable. SCORE: 5
(4) Technical Merit Score
(i) Technical Merit
(A) Qualifications of the Project Team – The technical qualifications of the team AP&T’s
engineers bring to this feasibility study equal over 90 years of hydro power experience,
from design to installation of project components, including project management.
SCORE: 10
(B) Agreements and Permits – These are described above under Environmental
Feasibility. SCORE: 5
(C) Energy and Resource Assessment – This application is for a feasibility study to
determine the quality and quantity of the renewable energy resource available, but has
projected that approximately 50% of Hoonah’s diesel generation could be eliminated
with this project. SCORE: 5 (because the resource has yet to be assessed fully)
(D) Design and Engineering – This application is for a feasibility study and as far as
design and engineering has been described for that, this detail is complete. SCORE: 30
(E) Project Development Schedule – The feasibility analysis schedule was described in
detail above under Design and Engineering in Technical Merits. SCORE: 5
(F) Project Economic Assessment – This information is unavailable at this time as just
the feasibility assessment of the project is currently proposed, but the economic analysis
will be part of the feasibility study. SCORE: 10 (because the level of assessment is
significantly smaller than if the project were in the construction phase)
(G) Equipment Procurement – Equipment is readily available for the feasibility study.
Equipment is also available for the construction of this type of project. A common
location for tidal gauges is Seafloor Systems, Inc. SCORE: 5
(H) Equipment Installation – In so far as AP&T has described site development for the
feasibility study, this is complete. SCORE: 5
(I) Operation and Maintenance – N/A for the feasibility study.
(J) Dismantling and Disposal of Project Components – N/A for the feasibility study.
(ii) Calculation of Technical Merit Score – SCORE: 35
(5) Readiness
AP&T certifies that we will commit to 100% of the matching funds for this feasibility
grant application. SCORE: 15
(6) Small Agricultural Producer/Very Small Business
AP&T is neither, but is a small business. Under the description provided it would appear
this is not applicable or a score of zero is appropriate.
(7) Simplified Application/Low Cost Projects
This project, even in the feasibility analysis, will cost more than $200,000. N/A
(8) Previous Grantees and Borrowers
AP&T has not been awarded a grant or loan under this program within the last 2 previous
Federal fiscal years. SCORE: 5
(9) Return on Investment
Because this application is for a feasibility study, a return on investment is not certain at
this time. If this project moves forward, it would probably be between 8-11 years for a
return on investment, or longer due to making the electric rates for the consumer less
expensive than they are currently paying.
(7) TECHNICAL REPORT
In accordance with Appendix B of this subpart:
(1) Qualifications of the Project Team
AP&T is a progressive electric and telephone utility serving many Alaskan communities
in Southeast Alaska, in the Interior, and around and above the Arctic Circle. In the last
14 years, AP&T has constructed four hydroelectric projects to generate electricity for its
customers. The last two projects have been permitted, designed, and constructed by
AP&T’s own team of engineers, specialists, and construction personnel, with limited use
of consultants and contractors. This approach has allowed AP&T to be economical and
flexible without sacrificing quality.
Because of this hands-on experience in hydroelectric permitting, design, and
construction, AP&T is well-qualified to conduct most of the feasibility study using its
own personnel, as follows; resumes for each are included in Attachment 2:
Larry Coupe, P.E. - - civil engineering and project manager
Glen Martin - - permitting and environmental manager
Ben Beste, P.E. - - mechanical engineering
Bob Berreth, P.E. - - electrical engineering
Consultants and contractors will be used for some field studies and data collection. The
consultants and contractors will be selected based on qualifications, existing working
relationships, workload, and cost.
(2) Agreements and Permits
AP&T applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a preliminary
permit in June 2009. Once a FERC permit is received this will lock up the site under the
Federal Power Act to allow us to conduct a feasibility analysis on Tongass National
Forest Land (USFS). Other permits that will be applied for once FERC issues a permit
are a USFS Special-Use Permit, DNR submerged land use permit, DNR water rights
permit, a Corp of Engineer permit (COE), and possibly a fish habitat permit. Discussions
with NMFS, USF&WS, and SHPO, would also take place as part of the feasibility
analysis and FERC preliminary permit. Assuming the FERC permit is issued by January
1, 2010, which it should be, we would immediately prepare and file for a USFS Special-
Use Permit to get authorization to conduct studies on federal land. These studies would
be of both a technical and environmental nature. The DNR water rights permit would be
applied for immediately as well. A DNR submerged lands permit would be applied for as
soon as the FERC permit is received in order to get approval to install a tidal gauge. A
COE permit would not be applied for until a wetlands determination has been completed.
A power sales agreement will also need to be negotiated with the power supplier to
Hoonah, the Inland Passage Electric Company (IPEC), but other than discussions, this
may not occur until the feasibility of the project has been initially analyzed.
(3) Energy/Resource Assessment
The availability of the resource is constant as tidal change occurs approximately twice a
day all year. The quality of the resource would be determined during the feasibility
assessment. It is anticipated that this project would reduce the use of diesel generation in
Hoonah by approximately 50%.
(4) Design and Engineering
The proposed tidal power project would utilize two bays in Port Frederick (known as
South Bight and North Bight), as shown on the enclosed maps and satellite photograph
(Attachment 1). As currently envisioned, the project would be a two-basin tidal energy
development wherein the two bays are isolated from Port Frederick by dikes and gate
structures, with a low-head power plant located between the two bays. During high tides,
water would be let into South Bight from Port Frederick, and during low tides water
would be released from North Bight into Port Frederick. Water would be continuously
released from South Bight into North Bight through the power plant. By controlling the
flows, a head can be maintained between the two basins, thus generating power
continuously in spite of the variability of the tides. This continuous generation will allow
the power to be usable in the small isolated electrical system of Hoonah. A preliminary
evaluation of the site indicates a capacity of about 400 kW and an annual generation of
2.7 GWh/year is possible, which would supply over 50% of Hoonah’s current energy
requirements.
The South Bight closure dike would be an earth-and-rock fill embankment about 400 feet
long and 25 feet high. It would be located in a narrow channel of South Bight near the
end of the peninsula separating South Bight and North Bight. The South Bight inlet
structure would be a gated channel across a small peninsula between South Bight and
Port Frederick. The hydraulic capacity of the inlet structure would be approximately
9,000 cfs.
The power plant would be located at a narrow section of the peninsula between South
Bight and North Bight. Inlet and outlet channels would connect the power plant to South
Bight and North Bight, respectively. The hydraulic capacity of the power plant is
preliminarily estimated to be about 560 cfs at 10.5 feet of head.
North Bight closure dike would be an earth-and-rock fill embankment about 4,000 feet
long and up to 80 feet high (approximately 60 feet of which would be below mean sea
level). It would be located near the east end of North Bight and would run between the
peninsula separating South Bight and North Bight and the peninsula separating North
Bight from Neka Bay. The North Bight outlet structure would be a gated concrete
structure located in the North Bight closure dike. The hydraulic capacity of the outlet
structure would be approximately 8,000 cfs.
Generation by the Project will be transmitted over a single submarine cable
approximately 10 miles in length to an interconnection to the Inland Passage Electric
Company (IPEC) electrical system in Hoonah. The transmission voltage would be 12.5
kV.
The two-basin tidal development concept has existed for at least 40 years (it is discussed
in Handbook of Applied Hydraulics, Davis & Sorensen, Third Edition, 1969). To
AP&T’s knowledge, an actual generating facility using the two-basin concept has never
been constructed, possibly due to the reduced head that occurs with a two-basin scheme.
In the last several years, new turbines have been developed that would allow generation
with very low heads, and thus a two-basin scheme may now be economical. The
proposed feasibility study will examine this potential. If it does prove to be economical,
there are undoubtedly many similar sites in Southeast Alaska.
AP&T has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a
preliminary permit to study the Project. When issued, the preliminary permit will 1)
provide AP&T with priority over the site for a three-year period, and 2) stipulate a
process for evaluating the technical, economic, and environmental feasibility. The
FERC-stipulated process is fully compatible with that required by the REAP grant
program, and the Feasibility Report will serve as the basis for the FERC license
application.
In the application for a FERC preliminary permit, AP&T indicated it will conduct the
following tasks to determine the technical, environmental, economic, and financial
feasibility of the Project:
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
o Site Reconnaissance - - AP&T will visit the site to determine the local setting and
evaluate physical constraints that are not apparent from the current map-based
assessments.
o Topographic Mapping - - Topographic mapping of the Project site will be
obtained by LIDAR or conventional photogrammetry. Data collection flights will
be made during a low tide period.
o Bathymetric Surveys - - Topography of the North Bight and South Bight basins
will be derived from bathymetric surveys using boat-based GPS and depth-
sounding equipment.
o Tide Gage - - AP&T will install a gage in the Project area to determine any
variation of the actual local tides from the predicted tides for Hoonah. The gage
will be operated for a minimum of one year.
o Geotechnical Investigations - - AP&T will contract with a qualified geologist or
geotechnical engineer for a site reconnaissance. If the reconnaissance determines
that a thorough characterization of the ground composition requires further
investigation, then AP&T will conduct such studies (such as seismic refraction
surveys and core borings). Because the North Bight Closure Dike will be by far
the most expensive component of the Project, the geotechnical investigations will
pay particular attention to that area.
o Power Studies - - AP&T will numerically model the operation of various
configurations of the proposed Project and determine the corresponding optimum
capacity and energy output.
o Optimization of Project Features - - AP&T will evaluate various configurations of
the Project features to determine the most feasible. The optimization studies will
include estimation of various quantities and costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY
o Scoping of environmental issues, including meeting with resources agencies and
the public.
o Preparation of study plans to address the environmental issues determined during
scoping.
o Field and office studies in accordance with the approved study plans. The full
scope of the environmental studies to be conducted for the Project cannot be
determined at this time, but are likely to include:
Collection of water samples over a one-year period, and analysis of potential
water quality impacts due to restricted flows in the bays
Studies to determine the existing use of the bays by fish, wildlife, and marine
plants, and analysis of potential impacts due to modified water levels.
Studies to determine past and present cultural use of the bays, and analysis of
potential construction impacts to significant heritage resources.
Evaluation of potential impacts to geological and soil resources (based on the
geotechnical investigations conducted for the technical feasibility evaluation).
Surveys to determine existing recreational uses of the Project area and
evaluation of impacts due to Project development.
Computer simulation of the project overlain on photographs to indicate the
potential impacts to aesthetics.
This project feasibility analysis will be conducted in compliance with all applicable
laws, regulations, agreements, permits, codes, and standards. If the project is
feasible, the project would also be constructed, operated, and maintained with the
same compliances.
(5) Project Development
The feasibility study will begin after receipt of the FERC preliminary permit, which is
expected by January 1, 2010. Scoping and study planning will begin immediately with
the intent of conducting much of the field work during the summer of 2010. Key
activities to take place during this period are listed above in “(D) Design & Engineering”
above. Installation of a tidal gauge will be of primary importance and will need
permitting through DNR for placing something in the water and possibly placing the
gauge on the bottom of the waterbody. Similarly, the COE will be contacted for
permitting putting in the gauge and if there is landbased hardware related to the gauge,
the USFS would also be contacted for a special-use permit. A Scoping Meeting with the
resource agencies and the public would be held in the spring of 2010 to find out how the
area is utilized by locals, whether there is any historical use of both bays, and what the
possible environmental impacts might be to determine what studies would be needed. A
Study Plan would be created after these meetings and circulated with the resource
agencies to make sure they are on target and will accomplish the information goals set
out during the Scoping meetings in the most economical way possible. Studies would
then be implemented as soon as possible or feasible the summer of 2010. Some studies
are likely to require two years of data collection. Consultants to conduct specific
environmental surveys will also be necessary, i.e. fish biologist, botanist, archaeologist,
etc. The feasibility study will be completed and the report transmitted to REAP by
December 31, 2011. If the study indicates a sufficient degree of feasibility, AP&T will
prepare and submit an application for license before expiration of the preliminary permit.
Monthly costs would be reviewed for applicability to the grant funds and then 25% of
those costs would be extracted to be billed to REAP up to the amount of the grant. Any
remaining costs would be paid for by AP&T, unless total costs exceed $200,000 in which
case additional funding could be acquired to pay for costs above that benchmark only.
(6) Project Economic Assessment
AP&T anticipates that revenues would be derived from power sales to Inland Passage
Electric Company (IPEC)(power supplier for Hoonah), and possibly from aquaculture in
the Project embayments. AP&T will compare the potential revenues and estimated
Project costs with varying financing conditions to determine the Project’s feasibility. It
is possible that the Project will be economically feasible only if grant funding is
available, in which case the analysis will assess the potential for obtaining such funds.
This project would save IPEC on fuel purchases and O&M for their diesel generators and
most likely provide less expensive electric rates to the consumer in Hoonah. However,
for the purpose of this Feasibility Assessment grant, we cannot provide a project
economic assessment; the grant will instead partially pay for the assessment.
The full cost of the feasibility study is not known at this time because the extent of the
environmental studies will not be known until after scoping and study planning. The
estimated cost range is $200,000 to $500,000. AP&T will provide the balance of funds
from its general revenues and/or grants and loans that may be available from the State of
Alaska and other Federal programs for costs above $200,000.
(7) Equipment Procurement
The equipment that will be needed for the feasibility assessment, i.e. tidal gauge, is
readily available. Equipment for eventual construction of the project is also available,
although the turbine will be of relatively newer design. As mentioned above, in the last
several years, new turbines have been developed that would allow generation with very
low heads, and thus a two-basin scheme may now be economical. The proposed
feasibility study will examine this potential. If it does prove to be economical, there are
undoubtedly many similar sites in Southeast Alaska.
(8) Equipment Installation
Site development would not occur in this feasibility phase. Installation of the tidal gauge
will be in compliance with permits from DNR, COE, USFS, and any other agency with
input.
(9) Operations and Maintenance
At this time there will be no operations and maintenance as this is just a feasibility
assessment.
(10) Dismantling and Disposal of Project Components
For this feasibility assessment the only equipment possibly requiring dismantling would
be the tidal gauge, however, this may stay in place if the project if feasible and
development is pursued.
(8) BUSINESS-LEVEL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
SYSTEMS
A business-level feasibility study will be conducted as part of the feasibility assessment.
This project will not have a significant affect on AP&T’s operations.
SCHEDULE
Install Tide Gage
Site Inspection
Re-evaluation of Conceptual Design
Reconnaissance Report
Environmental Scoping
Study Plan Development
PHASE II: Feasibility Analysis
Topographic and bathymetric mapping
Geotechnical investigations
Operations studies
Interconnection/coordination requirements
Revise conceptual design
Construction cost estimate
Economic analysis
Fish surveys and analysis
Wildlife surveys
Botanical surveys
Wetlands surveys
Archaeological survey
Water quality testing
Feasibility Report
PHASE III: Final Design and Permitting
Permits Application Preparation
Permits Application Processing
Final Design
PHASE IV: Construction
Continuous activity
Intermittent activity
Q3 Q4 Q1
2010 2011
Q2 Q3 Q4
2013
Q3 Q4Q1 Q4
2014 2015
Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q3Q2
PORT FREDERICK TIDAL POWER PROJECT
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
2012
Q3 Q4 Q4
2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q3Q1Q2Q1Q2
PERMITS & LICENSE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Port Frederick Tidal Power Project Project No.13512-000
Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments,
Motions to Intervene,and Competing Applications
(September 4,2009)
On August 7,2009,Alaska Power &Telephone Company filed an application for a
preliminary permit,pursuant to section 4(f)of the Federal Power Act,proposing to study the
feasibility of the Port Frederick Tidal Power Project (Port Frederick Project or project),
which would be located on South Bight and North Bight (bays)in Port Frederick,an inlet
off Icy Strait near Hoonah,Alaska.The sole purpose of a preliminary permit,if issued,is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term.A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned b y others without the owners’
express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following:(1)a proposed 25-foot-high,
400-foot-long earth-and-rock fill embankment closure dike across a narrow channel of
South Bight;(2)a proposed 4,500-acre-foot reservoir formed b y the South Bight closure
dike and having a surface area of 330 acres;(3)a proposed inlet structure on the South
Bight closure dike with a h ydraulic capacity of about 9,000 cubic feet per second (cfs);(4)a
proposed 80-foot-high,4,000-foot-long earth-and-rock fill embankment closure dike across
North Bight;(5)a proposed 4,500-acre-foot reservoir formed b y the North Bight closure
dike and having a surface area of 500 acres;(6)a proposed outlet structure on North Bight
closure dike with a h ydraulic capacity of 8,000 cfs;(7)a proposed powerhouse with one
generating unit;(8)a proposed 10-mile-long,12.5-kilovolt transmission line connecting the
powerhouse to the Inland Passage Electric Compan y’s electrical system in Hoonah;(9)
proposed construction of about 3 miles of project access roads;and (10)appurtenant
facilities.The proposed project would have an installed capacity of 400 kilowatts and an
estimated average annual generation of about 2,700 megawatt-hours.The proposed project
would occupy about 112 acres of federal lands managed by the Tongass National Forest.
Applicant Contact:Mr.Robert S.Grimm,President,Alaska Power &Telephone
Co.,P.O.Box 3222,Port Townsend,WA 98368;Ph.(360)385-1733 ext.120.
FERC Contact:Nick Jayjack,202-502-6073.
Deadline for filing comments,motions to intervene,competing applications (without
notices of intent),or notices of intent to file competing applications:60 days from the
issuance of this notice.Comments,motions to intervene,notices of intent,and competing
20090904-3012 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/04/2009
Project No.13512-000 2
applications ma y be filed electronically via the Internet.See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's website under the "e-Filing"link.If unable to be
filed electronically,documents may be paper-filed.To paper-file,an original and eight
copies should be mailed to:Kimberly D.Bose,Secretary,Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission,888 First Street,NE,Washington,D.C.20426.For more information on how
to submit these types of filings please go to the Commission’s website located at
http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.More information about this project,including a
copy of the application,can be viewed or printed on the "eLibrary"link of Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.Enter the docket number (P-13512)
in the docket number field to access the document.For assistance,call toll-free 1-866-208-
3372.
Kimberly D.Bose,
Secretary.
20090904-3012 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/04/2009
Document Content(s)
P-13512-000noticeNEWSPAPER.DOC........................................1-2
20090904-3012 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/04/2009
RESUME’S
COST WORKSHEET
GRANT BUDGET FORM