HomeMy WebLinkAboutAngoon Ruth Lake Grant Round 3 Final 11-10-09
Renewable Energy Fund Round 3
Grant Application
AEA 10-015 Application Page 1 of 30 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.akenergyauthority.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 30 10/7/2009
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of Angoon, Alaska
Type of Entity:
Municipality
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 189 Angoon, AK 99820
Physical Address
Angoon, Alaska
Telephone
907-788-3653
Fax
(907) 788-3821
Email
alclhoward99@yahoo.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Albert Howard
Title
Mayor
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 189 Angoon, AK 99820
Telephone
907-788-3653
Fax
907-788-3821
Email
alclhoward99@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
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s
governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and
follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant
agreement.
Yes
1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached
grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the
application.)
Yes
1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant
funds for the benefit of the general public.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 3 of 30 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)
Type in your answer here and follow same format for rest of the application.
RUTH LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
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.
Answer here.
THOMAS BAY, ALASKA. ANGOON AND ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE INTERTIED
COMMUNITIES WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS PROJECT
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 X Design and Permitting
Feasibility Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
On February 3, 2009, the City of Angoon (Angoon) filed an application with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a three-year preliminary permit under Section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) to study the feasibility of the proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric
Project No. 13366-000. On November 5, 2009, the City of Angoon received the FERC
preliminary permit for the project. The project would be located on Delta Creek and Ruth Lake
near Petersburg, Alaska. The project would be located within the Tongass National Forest,
which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). The proposed project would
consist of: (1) a 170-foot-high concrete arched dam at the exit of the natural Ruth Lake; (2) the
existing 130-acre Ruth Lake (at a current surface elevation of 1,350 feet above mean sea level
(msl)) would be impounded by the proposed dam to provide an estimated storage capacity of
17,000 acre-feet at a surface elevation of about 1,520 feet msl; (3) a proposed 12,600-foot-long,
6- to 12-foot-diameter combination bored tunnel and steel penstock; (4) a powerhouse
containing three generating units having a total installed capacity of 20 megawatts “MW”; (5) a
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 4 of 30 10/7/2009
proposed tailrace channel up to 600 feet long; (6) a proposed 2.8-mile-long access road; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project would have an estimated
average annual generation of 70 gigawatt-hours “GWh”, which would be sold to local utilities
currently serving the communities of Petersburg and Wrangell, eventual proposed service to the
communities of Ketchikan, Kake and Angoon. The proposed Ruth Lake Project would be
located partially on federal lands in the Tongass National Forest, which is administered by the
U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service).
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel
costs, lower energy costs, etc.)
The project would provide exceptional public benefit by providing primary or back up renewable
hydropower electricity to all Southeast Alaska intertie connected communities (currently
Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan, but soon Kake and then Sitka and Angoon) and would
provide low cost power to Angoon for the 50 year life of the project plus renewals. The City of
Angoon’s electrical demand is currently 100% met by diesel fueled generation. In addition to
the existing electrical loads, the City would also like to reduce all diesel usage in home heating,
schools and municipal buildings. Quantifying the benefit to Angoon: This project along with
City of Angoon’s Scenery Lake project would eliminate PCE subsidies from the State of Alaska
upon the completion of construction to the City of Angoon. In 2008 this amounted to
$236,577.84 (source AEA PCE Program). Further, Hoonah and Kake which are two other PCE
subsidized communities will be able to receive low cost hydropower from this development at
some point in the future. The communities received $641,212.24 and $299,887.90 in 2008 PCE
respectively.
The Net Present Value of eliminating PCE payments to these communities will provide
$30,301,376 in savings to the citizens of the State of Alaska over the 50 year life of this project.
(PCE subsidy per year based on 2008 IPEC subsidy for Angoon, Kake and Hoonah: $1,177,678
NPV @ 3% for 50 years = $30,301,376 assuming the price of delivered electricity is at the PCE
break even rate. However, it is anticipated that Scenery and Ruth lake will be able to produce
and deliver substantially lower cost power than the current PCE rate, so these savings to the State
of Alaska are underrated.
If we calculate the total benefit to the ratepayers by taking the 52.5 cents per kWh IPEC rate and
reduce it to the anticipated 7 cents per kWh rate produced by Ruth Lake, the Net Present Value
for the citizens of Angoon, Kake and Hoonah balloons: Total kWh sold by IPEC to Angoon,
Hoonah, and Kake in 2008 was 8,772,408 kWh (source AEA 2008 PCE report).
8,772,408 (52.5-7) = $3,991,445 in annual savings to Angoon, Hoonah, and Kake ratepayers
NPV @ 3% for 50 years = $102,698,937.90.
IPEC currently sells electricity in Angoon for a non-subsidized rate at over 52.5 cents per kWh.
This dramatic reduction in electrical rate that would put the City of Angoon on par with the
white urban hydropower connected communities of Southeast Alaska and would result in annual
savings in Angoon of over $850,000 annually (using Angoon 2005 kWh IPEC production
figures). Angoon has a population of roughly 470 people, so the beneficial economic impact
would be savings of approximately $1,808 per Angoon resident annually!
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 5 of 30 10/7/2009
Consider in this grant application that Angoon has 87% unemployment and has one of the
lowest per capita incomes for an Alaskan community of $11,357. City of Angoon revenues
from the project will assist the City of Angoon in direct and subsidized reduced energy costs as
well as provide economic opportunities that are competitively impossible (fish processing) with
high cost energy as compared to urban Southeast Alaska communities. For example, the City of
Angoon would be able to offer the local fish plant a competitive energy rate for the first time in
years. Ice (energy intensive to produce) would be available to local fishing operations increasing
economic activity in what is now an economic stagnant community. Low cost energy that is
competitive with urban communities is the only viable economic option to rebuild Angoon to a
thriving rural Southeast Community. The City of Angoon’s recent portfolio of energy assets
insures not only Angoon’s success but other SE communities as well, thereby exponentially
creating additional public benefit for each new community that reduces diesel consumption and
is able to backstop or reduce their ratepayer cost for electricity through these projects.
Further, the benefits of this project and grant transcend the purely economic value but enter the
socio economics of quality of life, economic self sufficiency and the reduction of alcoholism and
other social problems incumbent in high unemployment communities. It is difficult to
economically quantify the socio-economic benefits, but the Cold Climate Housing Research
Center estimates that 1 of 5 homes in rural Alaska is unable to maintain warm and sufficient
temperatures during winter months. The City of Angoon is taking steps so its citizens do not
have to make the tough choice of whether to “eat or heat”.
The economic and socio-economic benefits produced by the City of Angoon’s portfolio of
energy assets are a game changer for Southeast 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.
The City of Angoon requests $1,624,240 from AEA for Phase II Feasibility Analysis,
Conceptual Design and initial FERC Permitting requirements under federal guidelines for Ruth
Lake Hydroelectric Project. The City of Angoon is applying for federal matches and
collaborative investments and contributions from municipal and private interests that will be
made available to the City of Angoon on or before the July 1, 2010 AEA funding date. The City
of Angoon has received approximately received $95,000 of in kind pre-engineering, regulatory
scoping, and assistance from a private party dedicated to bringing low cost power to Angoon and
rural Native Southeast communities.
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. $1,610,440
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $402,610
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $2,013,050
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 6 of 30 10/7/2009
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)
$100,015,360
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $1,752,831,605
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.)
$ $30,301,376.50 PCE
elimination over 50 year
life.
Associated reduction in
GHG emissions, improved
economic base, increase in
standard of living and
disposable income.
Minimum $1808 annual
savings per IPEC Angoon,
ratepayer.
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.
Type in your answer here and follow same format for rest of the application.
The City of Angoon has contracted with Cascade Creek, LLC for Development Management
services for the Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project. The project management team will hire
competent and qualified businesses and contractors to perform the regulatory permitting and
license application for our FERC license. Included is a resume and background support for
Cascade Creek, LLC, their qualifications and references.
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.)
Phase I Reconnaissance
2nd Qtr 2008 through 2nd Qtr 2009
Phase II Licensing & Feasibility
2nd Qtr 2009 (preliminary Permit Application) through 4th Qtr 2012 (License
Application)
Phase III Final Design
2nd Qtr 2012 through 1st Qtr 2013
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 7 of 30 10/7/2009
Phase IV Construction & Startup
2nd Qtr 2013 through 1st Qtr 2015
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.)
FEASIBILITY ACTIONS remaining
NLT 3rd Qtr 2010
Complete transmission line connection feasibility study.
Solicit political Interest & support at the local, state and federal levels.
Collect & review all existing relevant data & information.
Develop detailed work plan and coordination strategy.
PERMITTING AND LICENSING
3rd Qtr 2010
Prepare and distribute Preliminary Application Document (PAD), distribute Notice of Intent
(NOI) to file an application for license, conduct initial consultation meetings.
Adopt the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP), make request, distribute draft Communications
Protocol, solicit acceptance and agreement from stakeholders to participate.
Apply for USFS Special Use Permit to install stream gages.
4th Qtr 2010
Conclude first year environmental studies, geographical assessment, office studies, plant &
animal inventories, geologic assessment.
1st & 2nd Qtr 2011
Initiate the scoping process, draft & distribute SD1(Scoping Document 1), draft & distribute
study plans, hold public meetings, review comments on SD1 draft & issue SD2. Update the
preliminary project design.
3rd Qtr 2011
Carry out second year environmental studies (as required). Conclude Geotechnical Study
4th Qtr 2011
Conclude environmental study reports. Draft environmental assessment report. Draft license
application.
1st Qtr 2012
Draft license application & environmental assessment report and distribute to agencies,
stakeholders and others as required.
2nd Qtr 2012
Prepare final license application based on comments & corrections including all exhibits.
3rd Qtr 2012
FERC accepts application, requests for additional information & corrections, Request for final
terms & conditions. FERC consult & legal review.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 8 of 30 10/7/2009
for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.
The City of Angoon has retained the services of Cascade Creek, LLC of Juneau Alaska as its
Development Manager for this project. Cascade Creek will assist the City of Angoon in
managing the project in a financially prudent manner based on their team member’s extensive
experience in building hydropower projects in Southeast Alaska on time, under budget and with
environmental certification.
Criteria for selection: Proven experience in building Southeast hydropower facilities and
Southeast Alaska transmission lines; designing and permitting Low Impact Hydropower Institute
certified hydropower facilities; proven experience in completing Southeast hydropower and
transmission line construction on time and under budget.
Cascade Development team will assist City of Angoon to provide regulatory support, design,
management support, engineering support and management of third party contractors. Cascade
Creek Development team will also assist the City of Angoon in securing funding for all phases of
the project and advise in power sales agreements.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Primary contact:
Mayor Albert Howard
City of Angoon
PO Box 189
Angoon, AK 99820
Phone 907-788-3653
e-mail: alclhoward99@yahoo.com
Supplementary contact:
Duff Mitchell
Cascade Creek, LLC
PO Box 23000
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone 907-586-3333
e-mail: duff.mitchell@thomasbayhydro.com
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
There are three primary risks with the project: Market risk, Political risk, and Environmental and
Permitting risk.
Market risk is related to overall project costs where lower costs will produce a lower per unit
kWh cost. Full utilization and full sales of anticipated generation also decrease market risk.
This risk is mitigated by negotiating with regional municipal and private power companies to
provide primary and back-up power for their systems. This risk is mitigated by the AEA award
of funds to our Native community and the timeline. It is expected that Southeast Alaska demand
for low cost hydropower will outstrip demand as home heating oil conversions reach critical
mass and tipping point occurs during licensing and construction phase of the project..
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 9 of 30 10/7/2009
The Political risk is that there are some parties reluctant to allow our Native community to own
and operate power generation as evidenced by the comments directed at Angoon through the
FERC permitting processes. This risk will be mitigated by our open and continued request for
participation by all neighboring communities, tribal entities and those entities that understand
that Southeast Alaska needs to create new and large generation today to provide unfettered low
cost power to our region in the next decades. The political risk is mitigated by AEA and the
legislature awarding and supporting our projects in the same manner as they have invested
millions of hydropower infrastructure dollars into predominately white and urban communities
in Southeast Alaska.
Environmental and Permitting risk is present as studies required by federal and state agencies
that will need to be initiated and completed to submit a FERC license application that is issued
with minor or no restrictions. The Environmental and Permitting risk is mitigated by the timely
issuance of AEA funding to execute work schedule.
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.
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project as proposed consists of a powerhouse containing three new
generating units having a total installed capacity of 20 megawatts that would have an estimated
average annual generation of 70 gigawatt-hours.
The amount of energy from this project will produce high volumes of relatively low cost primary
power for the Native communities of Southeast Alaska and provide relatively low cost back up
power for all regionally intertie connected utility systems. This project along with other Thomas
Bay, Alaska hydropower projects creates economies of scale and capacity to stabilize electrical
power prices in Southeast Alaska for the next 50 years. Other smaller scale power generation
alternatives will lead to escalating electrical prices that will further demean and economically
impact Native communities already suffering from energy disparities between Southeast
communities already achieving low cost power from large hydropower versus communities that
do not have large hydropower. If our community cannot achieve delivered power at the rate
equal or lower than urban Southeast communities, then we will not be able to compete
economically with fish processing or other traditional industry. Revenues generated from our
projects will decrease our dependence on State of Alaska PCE subsidies and community revenue
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 10 of 30 10/7/2009
sharing that will become increasingly difficult as the State’s oil money runs out.
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about
the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
The community of Angoon is serviced by the Inside Passage Electrical Cooperative with four
diesel generators.
Generators (#2 diesel fuel engines)
Caterpillar 3456ATAAC 475 kW
Caterpillar 3508DI 550 kW (existing)
Caterpillar 3508DITA 560 kW (existing)
Angoon’s electric generation facility consists of three diesel generator sets (genset) with a total
capacity of approximately 1,500 kw. The community’s load is typically between 250kw and
400kw. Their voltage output is 480v 3-phase which feeds three -250kw overhead transformers.
These transformers boost to a 7,200v distribution voltage and a majority of the community
receives power by an overhead distribution system.
This project will also beneficially impact Hoonah, Kake, Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan
because it will produce 70 GWh to provide primary low cost hydropower or backstop existing
systems that rely on diesel back up.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
The 2005 Angoon annual electric generation was approximately 2,021,000 kWh (source CHP
center). This electrical generation is entirely borne from the burning of diesel. However, more
disturbing is that there is no use of electricity used for space heating in Angoon due to the high
cost of electricity. Therefore over 95% of the energy usage for space heating for homes and
businesses is produced through diesel generated heat. Approximately 5% of the homes use
firewood or are supplemented with firewood.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 11 of 30 10/7/2009
The CBJ Greenhouse Gas Emission study released in March 2009 reveals that Juneau is 81%
dependent on diesel in its total non-transportation use of energy. Naturally, Angoon does not have
hydropower so it is 100% diesel dependent. However if we convert the BTU requirements for
Angoon using an 86% Cold Climate Housing Research Center “CCHRC” figure, we find that
Angoon would convert its diesel usage to electrical usage if the price of electricity provided the
economic incentive to convert to lower cost electrical heat. Theoretically, (based on the 2005
number of 2,021,000 kWh IPEC figure) the community of Angoon would need 14,435,714 kWh
(2,021,000/(1-86%) if it completely converted its home heating and diesel fuel usage to electrical
generation from low cost methods. Note CCHRC denotes in their 2009 Alaska housing
assessment that Sealaska Region villages are 86% diesel dependent for home heating fuel.
Theoretically, the community of Angoon currently needs the equivalent of 14,435 MWh for its
current needs. This usage fails to incorporate the price elasticity of demand in which energy
usage, demand, and growth rates will occur with the advent of low cost power to the community
of Angoon.
The power provider in Kake, Angoon, and Hoonah would be able to completely idle their
expensive diesel generation capacity to a stand by status reducing the cost of operating existing
infrastructure. The advent and intertie connections of the City of Angoon’s portfolio of energy
projects would change the power providers business model in that it would become a cheaper,
more efficient, non PCE subsidized utility. The power provider would need to build and expand
its distribution system in each community because the “elasticity of demand” of lower cost power
would create unprecedented power demand in converting home heat fuel from diesel to cheap
hydropower electricity which, in turn would justify line upgrades and line expansion to new areas
and rural land allotments in these communities.
Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan use an assortment of hydropower and diesel back up assets.
This project will beneficially impact the diesel back up infrastructure of these communities
because the advent of this project power will idle these assets so diesel is never burned again in
these communities except for the rare power line failure.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The community of Angoon has the highest unemployment rate of 87% (source TANF program,
Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska) and the lowest per capita income in
Southeast Alaska. The per capita income for Angoon was $11, 357. About 27% of families and
27.9% of the Angoon population is below the poverty line (source US Census Bureau Fact finder
for Angoon, Alaska). Alaska ranks number one in energy use per capita. According to the Cold
Climate Housing Research Center 2009 Alaska Housing Assessment, the average Sealaska
household (of which Angoon belongs) consumes $6,072 of energy per year. From these statistics
over one half of the average household per capita income of Angoon residents is spent on energy.
The impact of this project to bring low cost hydropower to the community of Angoon and energy
customers is profound since energy customers are making decisions to either heat their homes or
feed their household. This project will take a period to permit, license and construct. An
investment in this project is needed now in order to save the community energy customers for the
long term and to provide economic development with low cost power so that the economy of
Angoon can be rebuilt and jobs provided.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 12 of 30 10/7/2009
The current power provider currently sells electricity in a non-subsidized rate at over 52.5 cents
per kWh. This dramatic reduction in electrical rate that would put the City of Angoon on par with
the white urban hydropower connected communities of Southeast Alaska would result in direct
out of pocket annual savings to Angoon ratepayers of over $850,000 annually (using Angoon
2005 kWh IPEC production figures). Angoon has a population of roughly 470 people so the
beneficial economic impact would be $1,808 in savings per Angoon resident annually! ($850,000
savings/ 470 Angoon residents = $1808.51 annual prorated energy savings per resident). This
annual savings will significantly impact the livelihood and disposable income in a community
with one of the lowest per capita incomes in Alaska.
Similar savings are replicated in Hoonah and Kake dramatically increasing the standard of living
and providing a beneficial increase in the non-energy disposable income for these rural Southeast
Alaska residents.
Although water management and power management schemes between the Tyee Hydropower
facility and the Swan Lake Hydropower facility will temporarily negate the need for diesel, it is
just that, temporary. Home heat oil conversions will require that all three communities seek and
need new generation as evidenced by recent FERC competitive filings. All three communities
currently are over 80% diesel dependent for home and commercial heating needs. Further the
recent advent of electrical vehicles will require more electrical generation as traditional fuel based
transportation is converted to electrical means. Southeast Alaska already has a high per capita
ownership of hybrid vehicles and it is likely that there will be early adoption of electrical vehicles
due to short road distance and relatively high comparative fuel costs in Southeast Alaska.
The only community in Southeast Alaska to evaluate the energy oil dependency phenomena is the
City and Borough of Juneau. In the CBJ Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, it is made clear
that Juneau is 81% diesel dependent for all its non transportation energy needs. Based on current
energy consumption if one half of Juneau converted to electrical heat (premised on hyper oil price
increase) Juneau would need the electrical equivalent of 1-¼ Snettisham hydropower facilities. If
Juneau over time converted one half of its consumption of petroleum fuel used in transportation
to electrical, Juneau would need the equivalent of another Snettisham hydropower facility.
Extrapolating the City and Boroughs equivalent future energy needs to Ketchikan, Petersburg and
Wrangell, demonstrates that Southeast Alaska is underserved in current and constructed
hydropower resources and that the regions is at energy risk in the advent of hyper oil inflations.
Unfortunately, hydropower and transmission projects take time to plan, permit, license and build.
The probability of high oil prices based on the Energy Information Agency of the Department of
Energy exceeds the regions current planned and existing capacity.
Therefore the existing Energy market is fluid and highly dependent (risk) on the price of
petroleum and is therefore primed for disruption with the energy price outlook for the next decade
(planning and construction of hydropower horizon).
Project Impact on Energy Customers
• Reduce reliance on diesel generated power
• Increase power reliability during power outages
• Reduce energy cost for customers
• Enable new economic development in Angoon and other communities
• Improve quality of life for customers facing high energy costs from diesel generation
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 13 of 30 10/7/2009
• Improve local environmental conditions by reducing greenhouse gas emissions
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 proposed project is a hydropower project first identified in the early 1900’s and listed in the 1924 and
1947 Water Power Studies conducted by the federal government. Our intended design it to meet the criteria
set forward by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute in order for the project to be certified.
The project will consist of: (1) a 170-foot-high concrete arched dam at the exit of the natural Ruth Lake; (2)
the existing 130-acre Ruth Lake (at a current surface elevation of 1,350 feet above mean sea level (msl)) that
would be impounded by the proposed dam to provide an estimated storage capacity of 17,000 acre-feet at a
surface elevation of about 1,520 feet msl; (3) a proposed 12,600-foot-long, 6 to 12-foot-diameter
combination bored tunnel and steel penstock; (4) a proposed powerhouse containing generating units
having a total installed capacity of 20 megawatts; (5) a proposed tailrace channel up to 600 feet long; (6) a
proposed 20-mile-long, 138-kV transmission line; (7) a proposed 2.8-mile-long access road; and (8)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of 70 gigawatt-hours.
The City of Angoon filed and was awarded a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission preliminary permit on
Ruth Lake on November 5, 2009.
Optimum installed capacity – 20 MW
Anticipated capacity factor – 40%
Anticipated annual generation – 70 GWh
Anticipated development barriers include the funding and construction of a transmission line from Thomas
Bay to the proposed Kake to Petersburg Intertie that will traverse the Northern side of Kupreanof Island. The
Thomas Bay Kake Petersburg Intertie “TBKP” will be developed simultaneously with the other City of
Angoon portfolio of energy projects. Failure to receive a license to construct and operate the project is a
barrier to developing any new non-federal hydropower resource in the US.
Basic integration concept – Electric power from Ruth Lake would be integrated to PMPL’s, WMLP, IPEC
and KPU resources to serve current and future loads. Power would be delivered to PMPL’s system by a
distribution segment. Project power would flow on SEAPA publicly financed Swan Tyee Intertie. Power
surplus to City of Angoon’s needs could be delivered to SEAPA for use within the region.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 14 of 30 10/7/2009
Delivery methods - Electric power from the project would be combined with other Thomas Bay generated
power and transmitted by overland and submarine transmission segments to the Scow Bay Substation on
Mitkof Island. Power would be delivered to PMPL’s system by a distribution segment and to other southern
Southeast Alaska utilities by the interconnected transmission system operated by the Southeast Alaska Power
Agency “SEAPA” comprised of PMPL, WMLP, & KPU. Basic Integration concept. Ruth Lake will become
integrated into the growing components of the Southeast Intertie. A connection point in Petersburg is
approximately 17 miles, but a connection point that ties into the proposed Kake to Petersburg Intertie with a
proposed Thomas Bay to Kake Petersburg “TBKP” is significantly shorter at 12 miles, and more cost
effective.
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 land in which the project is situated is entirely on US Forest Service administered land. The land is not in
a wilderness designation and hydropower development is a permitted use in the land designation claimed by
our project.
There are no land ownership and access issues impacting our ability to permit, license, construct and operate a
municipal owned federally licensed hydropower project at Ruth Lake. The project land ownership/control
issue will be awarded to the City of Angoon upon successful completion of the FERC licensing process. In
the interim, based on the City of Angoon’s award of its FERC preliminary permit, the City will obtain a
Special Use Permit from the US Forest Service to conduct its regulatory requirements.
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
The primary authorization will be through a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), which will be lead agency for federally required environmental reporting
and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC license
will contain Articles implementing terms and conditions from other resource agencies such as US
Forest Service (USFS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), among others. Prior to
construction, the City will require, among others, the following permits, certifications and
authorizations:
• Special Use Permit, USFS;
• Coastal Zone Consistency Determination, ADNR;
• Title 41 Fish Habitat Permit, ADF&G;
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit, US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE);
• State Water Right for Diversion and Impoundment of Water, ADNR;
• Biological Assessment or Evaluation, USFWS;
• Various fuel and hazardous substance spill avoidance, containment and cleanup plans, US
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 15 of 30 10/7/2009
Environmental Protection Agency, USACOE, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Applications for these permits will occur at times specified by the respective agencies. USFS Special Use
Permits may be necessary to conduct stream gaging, geotechnical, cultural resources and other surveys,
beginning in mid 2010. Construction-related permits will be required before construction could commence.
Licensing and permitting has been shown to be one of the most critical elements of hydro project
development. The Angoon development team will work to address environmental conditions throughout the
preconstruction period. This will involve negotiation of permit conditions well in advance of the construction
start date to avoid adverse cost and schedule effects.
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
•The City of Angoon will conduct consultations with federal and state agencies during the pre-filing
development of the Application for License. These agencies will submit recommended terms and conditions
for inclusion in any License issued by the FERC. - Threatened or Endangered species – Angoon will consult
with ADF&G, FWS, NMFS & USFS, conduct required studies to identify any species of concern in Alaska
and/or Federal sensitive species, and implement measures to avoid and/or protect any species during
construction and Project operation.
• Habitat issues – Angoon will consult with ADF&G, FWS, NMFS & USFS regarding aquatic and terrestrial
species and habitat use within the Project area, conduct required studies, and implement measures to protect
habitat of concern during construction and Project operation.
• Wetlands and other protected areas -Angoon will consult with the USACE, ADF&G, and the FWS and
conduct an on-site wetland delineation to identify wetland acreage, types, and functional assessments within
the proposed Project boundary and consult with the agencies regarding any potential effects of constructing
and operating the Project.
• Archaeological and historical resources - Angoon will conduct consultations and studies;
and prepare reports required to address Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. Angoon will consult with tribes that have historical use in Thomas Bay
Land development constraints – Angoon will consult with the BLM regarding any mineral
claims; consult with agencies and the public regarding any effects on recreational use;
consult with private land-owners, and consult with the USFS regarding the Land Use
Designation for National Forest Lands that would be occupied by the Project. Measures
addressing land use will be incorporated in easements and the USFS Special Use
Authorization.
• Telecommunications interference – Not applicable
• Aviation considerations – Not applicable
• Visual, aesthetics impacts – Angoon will consult with the USFS and other federal/state
agencies, conduct studies and develop management plans to protect the visual and
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 16 of 30 10/7/2009
aesthetic resources at Ruth Lake
• Identify and discuss other potential barriers – none identified at present
Under FERC licensing regulations, environmental issues must be identified and addressed in the framework
of a list of Stakeholders including state and federal resource agencies, interest groups, the public and affected
tribes and Native Corporations. Issue identification, impact analysis and mitigation planning represent major
components of a major project such as Ruth Lake. Through the required resource consultation process,
Angoon will address environmental and land use issues including, but not limited to, the following:
Fish and aquatic resources;
Wildlife and botanical resources, including wetlands and sensitive plants;
Water use and quality;
Cultural resources;
Recreation resources;
Aesthetics;
Threatened and endangered species;
Subsistence resources;
Land use and ownership.
Among potential barriers in the environmental area are FERC regulations which afford significant authority
by the US Forest Service to condition any eventual FERC license. Angoon will work closely throughout the
development process with USFS to develop conditions acceptable to USFS, the City and FERC.
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
At this time, the City of Angoon proposes to operate its portfolio of FERC hydropower facilities on a
regulated basis. Surplus energy sales for energy that is not fully utilized by Alaskan municipal or regulated
utilities could be sold in lower 48 markets at a time that an international interconnection is made.
Total anticipated project costs and cost for all phases to include contingencies interest and bonding is
$100,015,360
. The cost for the permitting and licensing phase is highlighted in green in the spreadsheet below. The
following spreadsheet identifies and breaks down the cost for Phase II permitting and licensing that includes
is $2,030,300 and $25,000 for travel associated with elected leaders of Angoon to attend and address FERC
scoping meeting, which is the funding less match that is being sought after through the AEA Renewable
Energy Fund. Requested Grant Funding for Phase II of this project is $1,610,440
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 17 of 30 10/7/2009
Ruth Lake Hydro
20 MW - Project Cost Estimate, with dam, tunnel, penstock Nov 07, 2009
FERC
Acct. No Description Quantity y/n Unit Unit Price Amount ($)
300 LICENSING AND DESIGN
.1 FERC License and all permits (Ph II) 1 0 LS 0 0
.2 Project Design (Ph III) 1 0 LS 0 0
.3 Construction Inspection (Ph IV) 1 1 LS 480,000 480,000
.4 Quality Control & Inspection (Ph IV) 1 1 LS 520,000 520,000
.5 Construction Management (Ph IV) 1 1 LS 500,000 500,000
1,500,000
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights - Gen Plant & Transm Line (Ph IV) 1 1 LS 150,000 150,000
.2 USFS Special Use Permit (Ph II) 1 0 LS 0 0
.3 Surveying For Construction (Ph III) 1 0 LS 0 0
.4 Governmental Agencies (Ph III) 1 0 LS 0 0
.5 FERC 1 1 YR 15,000 15,000
Total - Acct. No. 330 165,000
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1 POWERHOUSE
.1 Excavation 4,792 1 CY 75 359,400
.2 Concrete Foundation (including reinforcing) 1,667 1 CY 1,000 1,667,000
.3 Building Superstructure 1 1 LS 300,000 300,000
.4 Mechanical, HVAC, Plumbing 1 1 LS 300,000 300,000
.5 Hydraulic Power Units 2 1 EA 75,000 150,000
.6 Miscellaneous Metals 1 1 LS 200,000 200,000
.7 Inlet Valves 2 1 EA 100,000 200,000
.2 DOCK and BULKHEAD
.1 Dock and Bulkhead 1 0 LS 2,000,000 0
Total - Acct. No. 331 3,176,400
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS
.1 DAM, INTAKE, SPILLWAY
.1 Permanent Ruth Lake intake house 1 1 LS 250,000 250,000
.2 Ruth Lake intake valve and hardware 1 1 LS 200,000 200,000
.3 Ruth Lake intake screens 1 1 LS 450,000 450,000
.4 Temporary Siphon to lower Ruth Lake, incl s. house 1 1 LS 150,000 150,000
.5 Temporary coffer dam 2,000 1 CY 50 100,000
.6 Temporary dewatering 1 1 LS 90,000 90,000
.7 Grout Curtain under dam 500 1 CY 1,000 500,000
.8 Abutment rock bolts/stabilization 8,400 1 LF 60 504,000
.9 Concrete arch dam 62,250 1 CY 300 18,675,000
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 18 of 30 10/7/2009
.11 Side channel spillway 1 1 LS 550,000 550,000
.2 POWER CONDUIT
.1 Project access road, Patterson Delta to PH 3.0 1 MI 316,800 950,400
.2 Penstock access road, PH to lower tunnel portal 9,000 1 LF 60 540,000
.3 Dam access road, lower tunnel portal to dam 3,500 1 LF 100 350,000
.4 Bridge over Patterson River 1 1 LS 1,000,000 1,000,000
.5 Tunnel portal excavations 1,550 1 CY 200 310,000
.6 Tunnel at 2% grade, drill and shoot 3,500 1 LF 1,060 3,710,000
.7 Tunnel suports and lining 1,430 1 CY 300 429,000
.8 Tunnel rock bolts/stab ilization 14,000 1 LF 60 840,000
.9 Tunnel excavation off-haul material (tunnel muck) 19,411 1 CY 5 97,055
.10 Electrical Powerhouse to Intake 12,500 1 LF 25 312,500
.11 72" Steel Penstock Material, upper in tunnel 300 1 LF 400 120,000
.12 72" Steel Penstock Material, upper buried 4,000 1 LF 400 1,600,000
.13 69" Steel Penstock Material, lower buried 5,000 1 LF 810 4,050,000
.14 Installation (supported in tunnel)300 1 LF 500 150,000
.15 Installation (buried) 9,000 1 LF 1,000 9,000,000
.16 Penstock grouting material 741 1 CY 500 370,500
.17 Penstock bedding material 8,000 1 CY 20 160,000
.18 Bifurcation at Powerhouse (manifold) 1 1 LS 200,000 200,000
.19 Couplings 1 1 LS 150,000 150,000
Total - Acct. No. 332 46,808,455
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 Supply (15 MW each) 2 1 EA 3,500,000 7,000,000
.2 Install 2 1 LS 400,000 800,000
Total - Acct. No. 333 7,800,000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Switchgear and Controls 1 1 LS 700,000 700,000
.2 Electrical Wiring in Power House 1 1 LS 250,000 250,000
.3 Startup & Testing 1 1 LS 250,000 250,000
.4 Miscellaneous Electrical 1 1 LS 50,000 50,000
Total - Acct. No. 334 1,250,000
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIP
.1 Overhead Crane 1 1 LS 250,000 250,000
.2 Standby Generator, Backup Batteries 1 1 EA 200,000 200,000
Total - Acct. No. 335 450,000
353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES
.1 Main Transformer 25 MVA (4kV to 138kV) 1 1 EA 750,000 750,000
.2 Accessory Switchgear Equipment 1 1 LS 150,000 150,000
.3 Labor to Install Transfmr, Sw Gear & Bus 1 1 LS 200,000 200,000
.4 Substation Foundations 1 1 LS 200,000 200,000
.5 Oil Spill Containment 1 1 LS 30,000 30,000
.6 Grounding Grid 1 1 LS 50,000 50,000
Total - Acct. No. 353 1,380,000
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 19 of 30 10/7/2009
356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1 Submarine Transmission Line @ 69kV 7.0 0 MI 1,056,000 0
.2 Underground cable @ 69 kV 1,500 0 LF 75 0
.3 Connection to Utility 1 1 LS 200,000 200,000
Total - Acct. No. 356 200,000
357 HOUSING
.1 Operator's Residence, shop fac. incl bldg, fnd, septic 1 1 EA 250,000 250,000
.2 Temporary Work Camp for Construction 18 1 Mo 40,000 720,000
Total - Acct. No. 357 970,000
358 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
.1 Freight, barge, trucking, air 1 1 EA 2,000,000 2,000,000
.2 Insurance 1 1 LS 1,500,000 1,500,000
.3 Fuel & Oil 1 1 LS 1,800,000 1,800,000
.4 Site Cleanup, Demob 1 1 LS 450,000 450,000
.5 Site Access with boat, helicopter, plane 1 1 LS 300,000 300,000
Total - Acct. No. 358 6,050,000
359 MOBILIZATION
.1 Freight, barge, trucking, air 1 1 LS 4,000,000 4,000,000
Total - Acct. No. 359 4,000,000
Total Direct Construction Costs 73,749,855
SUMMARY
DEV PHASE 1 COMPLETED TASKS 95,000
DEV PHASE 1& 2 AEA GRANT FUNDED TASKS ROUND 3 APPLICATION 1,988,050
DEV PHASE 3 TO BE FUNDED TASKS 1,320,000
300 LICENSING AND DESIGN 1,500,000
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS 165,000
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 3,176,400
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS 46,808,455
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS 7,800,000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMEN T 1,250,000
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIP 450,000
353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES 1,380,000
356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES 200,000
357 HOUSING 970,000
358 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS 6,050,000
359 MOBILIZATION 4,000,000
Total Direct Development Costs 3,403,050
Total Direct Construction Costs 73,749,855
Total Direct Costs 77,152,905
Contingency and Development Risk estimated at 10.0%7,374,986
Construction Bond estimated at 2.0%1,474,997
Overhead estimated at 7.0%5,162,490
Profit and Risk Fee estimated at 12.0%8,849,983
2009 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 100,015,360
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 20 of 30 10/7/2009
PHASES I, II, Cost Estimate RUTH LAKE
Ruth Lake
Total Cost State AEA 20% Match
PHASE I INITIAL FEASIBILITY
1010 PM - Company Structure and Financing
1020 Negotiate Transmission Line Conn.50,000 40,000 10,000
1030 Perform Feasibility and Market Study - -
1040 Conduct Field Reconnaissance and Site Visits - -
1050 Initial Political Efforts, local, state, federal 15,000 12,000 3,000
1060 Work Plan Review and Coordination 35,000 28,000 7,000
1070 Gather and Review Existing Data 10,000 8,000 2,000
1080 Conceptual Design & Layout - -
1090 Assist to Secure Funding for PHASE II - -
Phase I Subtotal 110,000 88,000 22,000
PHASE II PERMITTING & LICENSING - -
STAGE 1 - CONSULTATION - -
2110 PAD and NOI (Pre-Application Document & Notice of Intent)- -
2011 Prepare & Distribute PAD 35,000 28,000 7,000
2012 Conduct Initial Consultation meetings 15,000 12,000 3,000
2013 Written Comments back on PAD 1,000 800 200
2014 Draft Study Plans for Agency Review 35,000 28,000 7,000
2015 Agency Review of Draft Study Plans 1,500 1,200 300
2016 Final Study Plans 20,000 16,000 4,000
2120 ALP Request (Alternative Licensing Process)- -
2021 Prepare & Distribute Draft Communicati 1,000 800 200
2022 Agency Comments on Draft CP 200 160 40
2023 Submit CP & Request to ALP to FERC 500 400 100
2024 FERC Acceptance of Request to use AL 100 80 20
STAGE 2 - CONSULTATION - -
2210 First Year Environmental Studies - -
2211 IFIM Studies 30,000 24,000 6,000
2212 Fisheries Studies 80,000 64,000 16,000
2213 Wildlife / Terrestrial Studies 30,000 24,000 6,000
2214 Water Quality Studies 30,000 24,000 6,000
2215 Geotechnical Studies 250,000 200,000 50,000
2216 Cultural Resources Studies 40,000 32,000 8,000
2217 Recreation and Aesthetic Studies 15,000 12,000 3,000
2218 Socio Econ/Land Use/CZM Cert.20,000 16,000 4,000
2219 First Year Field Study Reports 74,250 59,400 14,850
2220 Scoping - -
2221 Prepare and distribute SD1 30,000 24,000 6,000
2222 Scoping Meetings and Site Visit 25,000 20,000 5,000
2223 Comments on SD1 2,500 2,000 500
2224 Revise SD1 into SD2 20,000 16,000 4,000
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 21 of 30 10/7/2009
2230 Preliminary Design - -
2231 Install Stream Gages 20,000 16,000 4,000
2232 Aerial Survey, Mapping, Layout, Site Vis 50,000 40,000 10,000
2240 Second Year Environmental Studies (as required)- -
2241 IFIM Studies 30,000 24,000 6,000
2242 Fisheries Studies 30,000 24,000 6,000
2243 Wildlife / Terrestrial Studies 100,000 80,000 20,000
2244 Water Quality Studies 30,000 24,000 6,000
2245 Second Year Field Study Reports 28,500 22,800 5,700
2250 Draft License Application Package - -
2251 Prepare Preliminary Draft EA 120,000 96,000 24,000
2252 Draft License Application Exhibits A, B, 21,000 16,800 4,200
2253 F Exhibit 50,000 40,000 10,000
2254 G Exhibit and Transmission Line 60,000 48,000 12,000
2260 Draft License Application to Agencies, Mailing 2,000 1,600 400
2270 Comments From Agencies, Public, NGO's 2,500 2,000 500
2280 Revise Application Materia l 20,000 16,000 4,000
2290 Prepare Final License Application Exhibits - -
2291 Prepare Draft EA (Applicant's)90,000 72,000 18,000
2292 Final License Application Exhibits 35,000 28,000 7,000
STAGE 3 - CONSULTATION - -
2310 Final License Application Package to FERC 20,000 16,000 4,000
2320 Submit Ancillary Permits 30,000 24,000 6,000
FERC ACTIONS ON LICENSE APPLICATION - -
2330 FERC Accepts Application - -
2331 Additional Information Request From FE 2,000 1,600 400
2332 Response to Additional Information Requ 50,000 40,000 10,000
2333 Intervention Notice & Request for Final T 2,000 1,600 400
2334 Final Comments and Terms & Condition 5,000 4,000 1,000
2335 Applicant Comments on Final Terms (if n 20,000 16,000 4,000
2340 FERC's Draft EA - -
Comments on Draft EA, 10-J negotiation 15,000 12,000 3,000
2350 FERC issues Final EA 1,500 1,200 300
2360 FERC Order Issuing License with Associated A 1,500 1,200 300
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PHASE II EXPENSES - -
2410 Project Management 85,000 68,000 17,000
2420 FERC Consultation 21,000 16,800 4,200
2430 Legal - FERC Coordination 55,000 44,000 11,000
2440 Political Efforts, local, state, federal 40,000 32,000 8,000
2450 Reimbursable Exp., Misc. & FERC 55,000 44,000 11,000
2460 Assist to Secure Funding for PHASE III 30,000 24,000 6,000
Phase II Subtotal 1,878,050 1,502,440 375,610
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 22 of 30 10/7/2009
The City of Angoon is eligible for several federal grant programs from the USDA and DOE and will be
applying to these agencies during open periods. Discussions with federal agencies confirm that the City of
Angoon is eligible for federal funding for this and future phases of the project.
The City of Angoon is under discussions with other communities in Alaska and will be considering and
negotiating other community participation in this project. The City of Angoon is eligible for extremely low
interest rate federally guaranteed loans (less than AIDEA rates) through both the USDA and DOE for
construction financing. Further, the City of Angoon will entertain private funding to meet any match shortfall
from federal sources. The City of Angoon will consider providing direct funding for the project that is
dependent on City finances and resolutions from the City Council.
The projected direct capital cost of the proposed Ruth Lake renewable energy system less contingencies, and
bonding: $73,749,855.
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system for all pre construction phases:
$3,403,050. The development costs are included in the direct capital cost.
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.)
It is premature to determine specific O&M costs for the project at this time. The City of Angoon anticipates
that the O&M costs of this project will be below $300,000 annually.
The City of Angoon will not request grant funding for any O&M costs for these new facilities. O&M costs
will be funded through the electric rates.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
• Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
Identification of potential buyers and customers: Southeast intertie integrated utilities to include IPEC Inside
Passage Electrical Cooperative which serves Kake, Angoon, and Hoonah.
Proposed Power Purchaser(s). The City of Angoon would sell power to local utilities serving the
communities of Petersburg and Wrangell. The City of Ketchikan is now connected to the same power grid
and serves as a potential customer via the Swan/Tyee S.E. Intertie. Eventually the community of Kake will
also have access to the S.E. Alaska power grid under a northern intertie route of the Kake to Petersburg
Intertie presently under study by the State of Alaska. Power generated from the Ruth Lake Project would be
available to these communities allowing them to abandon their diesel back-up generation systems as well as
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 23 of 30 10/7/2009
accommodate future long term growth demand. These SEAPA (Southeast Alaska Power Authority)
communities are presently served by the Tyee Lake hydroelectric facility. Revenues from project power sales
would assist Angoon in reducing the cost of power to Angoon residents by subsidizing the Angoon diesel
based generation system operational costs under the City of Angoon municipal formed energy department.
Eventually Angoon would be connected to the same S.E. power grid and have direct access to hydropower.
In previous AEA grant applications from Petersburg (PMPL Ruth Lake) Ketchikan (KPU-assorted hydro) and
Wrangell (WLP Sunrise) all three communities have documented the need for current, mid- term and long
term low cost energy for their ratepayers. The City of Angoon has a resolution of support from the City and
Borough on the development of Scenery Lake and will work with the City and Borough of Wrangell to
provide equity energy and or favorable power sales agreements.
The 2007 Green House Gas Emission Inventory (released March 2009) Figure 5 indicates that the community
of Juneau, Alaska is 81% diesel dependent for its total non transportation energy needs.
Most communities in Southeast Alaska have fewer all electric homes than Juneau so most SE communities
would be more than 81% diesel dependent.
The Energy Information Agency March 2009 report predicts that oil will be at $112.79 per barrel in 2017
which coincides when it is anticipated the Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project will come on line.
At this time, it is premature to dedicate a fixed power sales price. Based on experience with development
team members, the price range would be between 9 and 14 cents per kWh for Alaska purchasers. The range
and potential power purchase/sales price is dictated by several variables: definition of costs related to
regulatory restrictions on water flow and timing; demand for power outside Alaska at higher Lower 48 rates
that could be used to subsidize local power sales; amount of grant financing versus debt financing. The
projected price to communities of Angoon, Kake, Hoonah and any community that participates with this
project will receive most favorable rates of a price range.
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project.
The rate of return on the project is financially viable to be able to obtain federally guaranteed loans for the
construction phase on the project. However, until the regulation process is complete, and FERC license
issued, it is undeterminable to calculate an accurate rate of return. For example, a specific FERC condition
applied as a condition of licensing could materially impact the specific rate of return. The goal is to achieve a
financially viable hydropower project with a fair rate of return for the City of Angoon.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 24 of 30 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.
Download the form, complete it, and submit it as an attachment. Document any conditions or sources your
numbers are based on here.
See Attached Project Cost Worksheet.
Sources are federal grants for match, followed by limited City of Angoon funds, followed and backstopped by
private and or other municipal community investment into the project.
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
• Annual fuel displacement. In 2008, Angoon used 147,994 gallons of diesel to produce electricity
annually. In addition, during the life of the project all three Native diesel dependent communities of
Kake, Angoon and Hoonah will become hooked to an integrated SE Intertie allowing cheap project
electricity to flow to these communities to displace oil. These communities have combined diesel fuel
consumption (2008 AEA PCE program) of 714,664 gallons with a 2008 cost of $2,144,248. This
project can displace 100% of this diesel cost.
BASED ON 2008 DOLLARS THE NET PRESENT VALUE OF THESE FUEL for KAKE
ANGOON AND HONAH SAVINGS:
pv= $2,144,248, 3%, 50 YEARS = $55,170,995.
• Due to the high likelihood of SEAPA becoming resource insufficient from their internal generation or
from generation from nearby facilities in the midterm outlook of 7 years, SEAPA regional savings
would be significant with addition of Ruth Lake as power delivered from Ruth Lake would replace
current use of diesel generation. Regional cost savings are substantial and will be firmed throughout
the FERC licensing process. The Ruth Lake project would allow PMPL to displace approximately
75,000 gallons of fuel per year which equates to approximately $260,000 per year at today’s fuel
prices. The lifetime for well operated and maintained hydro projects can exceed 100 years. This
information was obtained from the Petersburg Municipal Power and Light application and therefore is
based on PMPL certified analysis. Last year Wrangell burned 49,285 gallons in 2008 for supplement
back up generation and spent .$212,024 (Source City and Borough of Wrangell). Ketchikan burned over 1.6
million gallons, but the Ketchikan diesel cost is unavailable.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 25 of 30 10/7/2009
BASED ON 2008 DOLLARS THE NET PRESENT VALUE OF Wrangell and Petersburg FUEL
SAVINGS:
pv= $472,024, 3%, 50 YEARS =$12,145,066.13
According to the AK BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska report 2007, an electricity Price threshold conversion for
SE Alaska was determined. The community already pays over $5.00 a gallon for home heating fuel and the conversion
rate at this cost is that it would be cost effective to switch from diesel home heating to the low cost hydropower
produced by this hydropower project.
Figure 3-2-1 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska 2007
The City of Angoon plans to sell all in State sales of electricity at a cost plus basis. As a comparison, the
PMPL prior proposal indicated that without full grant subsidies that their anticipated cost of power will be 18
cents per kWh (Source AEA PMPL Round 1 & Round 2 applications).
Annual Revenue generated by the project is anticipated to be approximately $8 to $12 million including
revenue from selling Renewable Energy Certificates and CO2 Offsets.
Green House Gas Emission reduction, cap and trade, future environmental attributes.
Diesel generation pollutes Angoon’s otherwise pristine environment and community. Per a July 9, 2007 letter
submitted the US Forest by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative “IPEC”, the utility discharged 3,437,981
pounds of CO2 emissions in 2006. One key benefit of this development would be to mitigate this discharge
of CO2 emissions in our community that impacts the health and safety of our shareholder, tribal and
community members – all of whom are residents of Alaska in Angoon. The economic benefits of this
reduction are the subject of several EPA studies at least one of which was recently made public.
The non-economic benefits of displacing oil, reducing green house gas emissions as well as the socio-
economic impacts that are associated with poverty and energy poverty are substantial and have been defined
in part in this grant application.
For a large picture analysis and comparison in determining values to the public. Consideration of value must
consider the State value of this project versus the past historical costs of Tyee which was built with State and
federal funds for a construction cost of $129,040,000 ($5,863/kW) and the KPU operated Swan facility for
$96,626,000 ($4,831/kW) (Source: As of Dec 31, 1992, Alaska Department of Revenue. Treasury Division
Policies and Procedures Manual Appendix AR). The expected total cost to build Ruth through construction
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 26 of 30 10/7/2009
all costs inclusive to include contingencies and bonding financing is $100,015,360 ($5,000/kW) even though
the previous funded projects are now 30 plus years old. The economic benefit to the State of Alaska and the
Alaska public is profound.
Per the previous discussion in Section 2.5 Benefits
The Net Present Value of eliminating these PCE payments will save to the citizens of the State of Alaska over
the 50 year life of this project is $30,301,376.
PCE Subsidy per year based on 2008 IPEC subsidy for Angoon, Kake and Hoonah: $1,177,678
NPV @ 3% 50 years= $30,301,376.50 assuming the price of delivered electricity is at the PCE break even
rate. However, it is anticipated that Scenery and Ruth lake will be able to produce and deliver substantially
lower cost power than the current PCE rate, so these savings to the State of Alaska are underrated.
If we calculate the total benefit to the ratepayers by taking the 52.5 cent IPEC rate and reducing it to the
anticipated 9 to 14 cent rate produced by Ruth the Net Present Value for the citizens of Angoon, Kake and
Hoonah balloons:
Total kWh sold by IPEC to Angoon, Hoonah, and Kake in 2008 8,772,408 kWh(source AEA 2008 PCE
report
8,772,408 (52.5-7)= $3,991,445 in annual savings to Angoon, Hoonah, and Kake ratepayers
NPV @ 3% 50 years= $102,698,937.90
IPEC currently sells electricity in a non-subsidized rate at over .52.5 per kWh. This dramatic reduction in
electrical rate that would put the City of Angoon on par with the white urban hydropower connected
communities of Southeast Alaska would result in direct out of pocket annual savings to Angoon ratepayers of
over $850,000 annually (using Angoon 2005 kWh IPEC production figures). Angoon has a population of
roughly 470 people so the economic impact would provide and energy savings of $1808 per Angoon resident
annually!
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 City of Angoon has entered into a Development Management Agreement with Cascade Creek, LLC of
whose principals have built three hydropower projects and over 50 miles of transmission line in Southeast
Alaska on time and under budget. Their projects: Goat Lake, Black Bear Lake, and Power Creek all provide
low cost power while meeting Low Impact Hydropower Institute or Green-E standards (and resulting
environmental attributes).
The City of Angoon will own and operate its projects as a municipality owned hydropower generation facility
as its business structure.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 27 of 30 10/7/2009
The City of Angoon proposes to finance the operations and maintenance of the project through the revenue
stream generated. Unlike other heavily subsidized (Federal and State) that do not fully utilize the hydropower
resource; Angoon plans to sell excess power to meet full utilization of the resources.
The City of Angoon enjoys superb relations with the largest project in Thomas Bay, privately owned Cascade
Creek hydropower. The City of Angoon will achieve economies of scale for its projects for transmission line
O&M, substation O&M, and shared infrastructure by the prorated share of these costs that would otherwise be
borne by one project. These economies of scale result in lower delivered electrical rates to Alaska consumers
and our community.
Specific operational costs will be determined throughout the FERC process due to changes of plan and
conditions that might evolve through the process.
As a municipality owned hydropower facility, the City of Angoon is committed to reporting the savings and
benefits derived from its municipally owned projects.
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.
The City of Angoon has worked diligently to secure agreements to file our municipal FERC
Preliminary Permit application and has responsibly secured site control through the FERC
preliminary permit process before engaging in fund raising and grant activities. The City of
Angoon has worked closely with interested parties, Boroughs, and Native entities that support
clean and low cost renewable energy development in preparing this grant application and will
proceed with this project with or without State funding although its chances of success are
exponentially increased by AEA participation.
To date, we have conducted our initial feasibility and are now ready to move to permitting and
licensing. As of this date, we have not applied to other grant sources and we have not received
previous grant resources on this project.
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 Angoon by virtue of its federally filed FERC permits demonstrates local support for
Angoon’s strategic energy planning. Angoon would be the primary beneficiary of this energy
generation but common sense will dictate that the entire Southeast region to include all current
and future connected communities will benefit.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 28 of 30 10/7/2009
The City of Angoon has the local support of all ANB camps of Southeast Alaska as illustrated by
the Grand Camp Alaska Native Brotherhood and Sisterhood 2009 resolutions supporting our
projects. The ANB and ANS represent 26,000 Native Alaskans in Southeast Alaska. These
specific resolutions are: Resolution #28-09 Support for Angoon's Renewable Energy
Developments that specifically support the City of Angoon’s development of Scenery and
Ruth Lakes; Resolution #33-09 Title: Support for Native participation in building, constructing
and management of Energy Infrastructure in Southeast Alaska. This resolution specifically
supports the City of Angoon’s development of Scenery and Ruth Lakes.
The City of Angoon has the local support of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians of
Alaska. Resolution TA/09-46 Title Renewable Energy and Alternative Fuels for our
Communities. This resolution specifically endorses the City of Angoon’s development of
Scenery Lake.
The City of Angoon has the local support from the City and Borough of Wrangell. The City and
Borough of Wrangell has passed a resolution supporting the City of Angoon’s development and
construction of Scenery Lake. The City and Borough of Wrangell is the closest organized Alaska
Borough to the project. Resolution 06-09-1160. Resolution of the Assembly of the City and
Borough of Wrangell, Alaska supporting the City of Angoon, Alaska in obtaining their FERC
Permit and ongoing hydropower project. Scenery Lake.
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
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the
project.
The City of Angoon is using a proven FERC licensing milestone and timeline developed by
experienced and successful applications for license. Our milestone chart is therefore a little bit
different from the Grant Budget3.doc which is generic for all types of generation projects.
To date, the City of Angoon has received approximately $95,000 of services provided in-kind to
the City of Angoon from private sources. The feasibility, initial concept and FERC preliminary
permit have been secured. In order to execute this project to FERC license, the City of Angoon
is requesting the cost effective (competitively compared to smaller but more expensive
hydropower projects submitted in Round 1 and Round 2) amount of $1,610,440 with a City of
Angoon match of $402,610. This match will be made from City of Angoon resources, federally
matching resources, other community resources, utility participation resources and private
resources. The City of Angoon reserves the right to maximize its match with cooperative
communities and entities but has sent letters to Wrangell and made it abundantly clear that the
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 29 of 30 10/7/2009
City of Angoon welcomes other community participation for mutual benefit and long term
energy security for all of Southeast Alaska that 70 GWh from this project can provide.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 30 of 30 10/7/2009
SECTION 9 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A. Resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and
suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4.
B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4.
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 9.
D. Letters demonstrating local support per application form Section 8.
E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD per RFA Section 1.6.
F. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant’s
governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that:
- Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the
match amounts indicated in the application.
- Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to
commit the organization to the obligations under the grant.
- Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this
application.
- Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local,
laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
F. CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful
and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply
with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
Print Name Albert Howard
Signature
Title Mayor
Date 11-10-09