HomeMy WebLinkAboutUAF Galena Greenhouse Feasibility App November 5, 2009
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Re: Proposal to AEA Renewable Energy Fund, Round 3: “Greenhouse Feasibility and
Applications in Rural Alaska”
Dear Sir or Madam:
The University of Alaska Fairbanks is pleased to submit the attached proposal, “Greenhouse
Feasibility and Applications in Rural Alaska.” The Principal Investigator from UAF is Gwen
Holdmann, Director of the Alaska Center for Energy and Power, INE.
As ARO for the UAF Office of Sponsored Programs, I affirm that UAF, as a division of the
Alaska State government, is eligible to apply for this funding.
UAF is committed to supporting this project as outlined in the statement of work and budget,
and that UAF has the necessary infrastructure to manage and support this project.
While this proposal does not commit any matching funds, the project will benefit from a
complementary project, funded by EPA and managed by the Tanana Chiefs Conference. This
collaboration will represent a significant cost savings to AEA over the life of this project.
UAF is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including existing federal
credit and federal tax obligations.
If you need additional information, please feel free to call my office at (907) 474-1851.
Sincerely,
Andrew Parkerson-Gray, Director
Office of Sponsored Programs
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 2 of 19 10/7/2009
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Type of Entity:
Governmental entity
Mailing Address
POBox 755910, Fairbanks AK 99775
Physical Address
814 Alumni Drive, Fairbanks AK 99709
Telephone
907-474-1144
Fax
907-474-5475
Email
ross.coen@alaska.edu
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Maggie Griscavage
Title
Director, UAF Office of Contract & Grant Administration
Mailing Address
University of Alaska Fairbanks, PO Box 757880
109 Administrative Services Center, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7880
Telephone
907-474-6446
Fax
907-474-5506
Email
gmgriscavage@alaska.edu
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
A local government, or
x A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s
governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and
follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant
agreement.
Yes
1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached
grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the
application.)
Yes
1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant
funds for the benefit of the general public.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 3 of 19 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.
Greenhouse Feasibility and Application in Rural Alaska
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.
Greenhouse project in Galena, Alaska, and feasibility studies in six rural Alaska communities.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
Wind Biomass or Biofuels
Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
x Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic
Solar Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe)
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Reconnaissance Design and Permitting
x Feasibility x Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
This proposal, “Greenhouse Feasibility and Application in Rural Alaska,” seeks to expand on a project
currently recommended for funding by the Environmental Protection Agency to construct and operate a
greenhouse in Galena, Alaska, that utilizes recovered heat from the city power plant to extend the
growing season by a few months in both the spring and fall, and provide fresh, affordable produce for the
community and schools. This proposal builds on that project in four ways: (1) provide additional staff
time for project managers and equipment to ensure successful greenhouse operation, (2) provide summer
employment for six Galena high school students on the project to build organizational capacity and
community support, (3) use the Galena project as a model to conduct feasibility studies for similar
greenhouse projects in six communities in rural Alaska, and (4) prepare a final report that includes
economic analysis and an engineering assessment of the pre-project heat recovery system and subsequent
load placed on the system by the greenhouse. In addition to the goals of the EPA-funded greenhouse itself
(e.g., fresh produce, economic development, energy efficiency), this proposal will result in a template for
establishing community greenhouses in villages throughout rural Alaska by expanding local capacity,
providing training, and evaluating technical and economic feasibility.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 4 of 19 10/7/2009
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel
costs, lower energy costs, etc.)
Greenhouses in rural Alaska can be located adjacent to power plants where recovered heat from
the exhaust and/or jacket water can be used to heat the greenhouse and extend the growing
season by several months. A significant benefit is that such greenhouses can utilize low-grade
heat that is not suitable for any other use and would otherwise be lost. Public benefits also
include: (1) economic development and job creation in communities where both are often hard to
come by, (2) a source of fresh, affordable produce, (3) health benefits from eating nutritious
food, (4) reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced landfill waste resulting from lower
volumes of packaged food having to be imported via airplane and barge, (5) educational
opportunities for schoolchildren, (6) community gardening opportunities, especially for elders
who might not otherwise have access to gardens and equipment.
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 proposal budget is $313,280, which includes funding for the primary grantee, the Alaska
Center for Energy and Power at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and a sub-award to Tanana
Chiefs Conference. These two organizations are lead partners on a two-year proposal submitted
to the Environmental Protection Agency for construction and operation of the greenhouse in
Galena. This proposal has been recommended for funding, but has not been formally awarded to
TCC yet. The EPA award is $287,876, with an additional $32,800 provided as leveraged
resources by TCC. This EPA-funded award, for which TCC and the EPA are presently engaged
in final programmatic review, will supply the greenhouse structure, installation, operating costs,
staff to operate it, and some staff training funds. Other project partners on the EPA award who
will provide local capacity and support include the City of Galena (which provided the lot where
the greenhouse will be located), Louden Tribal Council, and the Galena Interior Learning
Academy (where teaching staff will support classes and hands-on educational programs for
schoolchildren).
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. $313,280
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) see Section 2.6
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $313,280
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)
$313,280
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) see Section 5
2.7.6 Other Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in
terms of dollars please provide that number here and
explain how you calculated that number in your application
(Section 5.)
see Section 5
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 5 of 19 10/7/2009
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references
for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to
solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance
from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
Type in your answer here and follow same format for rest of the application.
Gwen Holdmann, Director of the UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) will serve
as PI on the project. Co-Investigators include: 1) Jeff Werner, Research Professional at the UAF
Controlled Environment Agriculture Laboratory, who will manage all aspects of the project
directly related to the greenhouse and feasibility studies; 2) Ross Coen, Rural Energy Specialist
for ACEP, who will manage administrative duties and project oversight for UAF; 3) Meriam
Karlsson, Professor of Horticulture at the UAF School of Natural Resources and Agricultural
Sciences, will provide technical and administrative support on greenhouse operations and will
assist with final report preparation; and 4) Charlisa Attla, Director of Special Projects for Tanana
Chiefs Conference, who will perform administrative duties on the TCC sub-award.
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.)
Task 1: Initiation of project (January 2010 [with EPA funding], to be completed summer 2010).
Milestones:
Procurement of greenhouse and related equipment.
Shipping to Fairbanks, then barging to Galena.
Task 2: On-site preparation (completed summer 2010).
Milestones:
Hiring/training Galena students.
Site prep and greenhouse construction, including connection to utilidor.
Pre-project engineering assessment of heat recovery system and district heating loop.
Identification of rural Alaska communities for feasibility studies.
Task 3: Feasibility studies (summer-fall 2010).
Milestones:
Werner travel to three communities.
Interviews, on-site assessments.
Travel for one community member to Fairbanks for training.
Preparation of feasibility study report.
Task 4: Development of operational plan (fall-winter 2010).
Milestones:
Procurement of supplies for planting and greenhouse operation.
Task 5: Greenhouse operation (spring-summer 2011).
Milestones:
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 6 of 19 10/7/2009
Additional training for student employees.
Planting, harvesting, distribution of produce.
Mid-project engineering assessment of heat recovery system and district heating loop.
Task 6: Feasibility studies (summer 2011).
Milestones:
Werner travel to three communities.
Interviews, on-site assessments.
Travel for one community member to Fairbanks for training.
Preparation of feasibility study report.
Task 7: Final report (early 2012).
Milestones:
Economic analysis by Mager.
Engineering analysis by Schmid.
Greenhouse/agricultural analysis by Werner and Karlsson.
Final report preparation and distribution.
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The
Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to
manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.)
See Section 3.2.
3.4 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the
project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will
be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process
you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references
for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.
Shipping the greenhouse and related equipment from the manufacturer in Minnesota will require
a 40-foot container that can be transported via truck and barge to Alaska, then via barge to
Galena. This is a common contractual function for which UAF and TCC have experience. The
greenhouse itself is a “snap-together” modular structure that requires no specialized labor beyond
what co-Investigator Werner and project staff can provide. Project partners in Galena have
committed resources (i.e., volunteer time, tools, equipment) to assist in the greenhouse
construction. Selection of the greenhouse was made by Werner, who has years of experience
with greenhouse vendors and selected the model in this proposal (XA-300) for its ease of
construction, affordability, and durability in sub-arctic environments. The greenhouse is identical
to that currently in operation at Chena Hot Springs—a project, incidentally, on which Werner
plays a lead role. UAF research engineer Jack Schmid will conduct the engineering assessment
of the power plant’s heat recovery system in two phases—both before and after the greenhouse
comes online. These data will provide guidance for future greenhouse projects on heat load,
equipment selection criteria, and so on. UAF energy analyst Markus Mager will conduct
economic analyses of the project, both for energy consumption and vegetable production, and
will assist Coen with preparation of the final project report. UAF editor Fran Pedersen will
provide reporting assistance.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 7 of 19 10/7/2009
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
The Galena greenhouse project includes no less than eight on-site employees, a dozen trips UAF
personnel will make to the site over the two years of the project, and a Web-based monitoring
system that includes webcams—all of which demonstrates the level of monitoring and oversight
that will take place. The project team will maintain regular contact with both EPA and AEA on
the project’s progress, particularly in the fall and winter between phases 1 and 2 when the
operational plan for the second phase will be readied for implementation.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
The primary challenge identified on the project is maintaining community interest and ensuring
an adequate supply of labor to accomplish the workplan. This challenge is being met in the
following ways: (1) the project partners include: Tanana Chiefs Conference, Alaska Center for
Energy and Power, Louden Tribal Council, City of Galena, Galena Interior Learning Academy,
UAF Controlled Environment Agriculture Laboratory, and UAF Cooperative Extension
Service—a diversity of organizational commitment that ensures the project’s prospects do not
rest on a single entity; (2) between the EPA award and this AEA proposal, the project includes
employment for two regular staff and six high school student workers, in addition to hundreds of
hours of staff time for the project team. This project is not technically challenging, but it is labor
intensive, and a successful project requires this level of human resource support. Another
challenge involves the ability of the power plant’s heat recovery system to deliver sufficient
amounts of low-grade heat to the greenhouse. This is an issue of concern only because other
buildings in Galena—city office/clinic, shower building, swimming pool, school, and water
plant—already utilize district heat for space heating. The timeframe for greenhouse operation,
however, is precisely those months in the spring, summer, and fall when the heating load in the
other buildings is lowest. The engineering assessment to be conducted by Jack Schmid will result
in operational parameters for efficient use of the available heat on this project and will lead to
guidelines in the final report that describe how other greenhouse projects might maximize the
recovered heat resource.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 8 of 19 10/7/2009
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of
the RFA.
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a
plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project.
The Galena greenhouse project utilizes recovered heat from the district heating loop originating in
the power plant’s diesel generators. The estimated heat load for the greenhouse is low and will be
required in the spring and fall when other demands on the district heat system are relatively low.
An important component of this project is evaluating the exact heat load the greenhouse places on
the system and its overall effect on the district heat loop. These data do not currently exist or are
unavailable to project staff. The advantages to this energy source are that the heat recovery
system is currently in operation, thus the recovered heat exists independently of the greenhouse
and would be lost if not otherwise used. Alternatives to heating the greenhouse include a wood-
fired boiler or some other secondary heat source. These alternatives have strong disadvantages,
however, such as the need for daily monitoring and regular fuel deliveries to the system.
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.
According to Power Cost Equalization data and the Alaska Energy Authority’s 2009 community
energy inventory, the Galena power plant’s current fuel efficiency is 13.46 kW-hr/gal, which the
report suggests can be improved to 14.8 kW-hr/gal with generator replacement and switchgear
upgrade. The heat recovery system results in an approximate annual savings of $499,495.
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.
As explained in 4.1 above, the energy resource to be utilized in this proposal is recovered heat
from the Galena city power plant. As explained in 3.6 above, a potential impact of the project is
the additional load the greenhouse will place on the heat recovery system. The project team
expects this impact to be minimized, however, by the fact that the timeframe for greenhouse
operation is precisely those months in the spring, summer, and fall when the heating load in the
other buildings on the district heating loop is at its lowest point. The engineering assessment to be
conducted by Jack Schmid will result in operational parameters for efficient use of the available
heat.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 9 of 19 10/7/2009
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The district heating loop in Galena exists and operates independently of this project. In short, the
heat is there and if not used, is lost. The impact of the project on energy customers does not
extend beyond the aforementioned additional load the greenhouse will place on the district
heating loop, which will be an area of comprehensive study as part of this project. The positive
impacts, however, are numerous and are listed in 2.5 above.
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 Galena greenhouse (as well as other potential greenhouse locations whose feasibility will be
studied in this proposal) relies on established technology involving the district heating water loop
and heat exchangers identical to the development at Chena Hot Springs. The greenhouse
identified for this project is 30 feet wide by 100 feet long, and will have the latest technologies
and equipment necessary for maximum yield, ease of operation, lessened dependence for labor,
and decreased risk of crop failure. The greenhouse and field production system, crop
development, and management training will be overseen by the staff of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks Controlled Environment Agricultural Laboratory (UAF-CEAL). The greenhouse will
be monitored via distance management techniques to assist onsite managers and workers. The
utilization of environmental controllers, Web-assisted cameras, and other technologies will
provide real-time assistance. UAF-CEAL has been researching remote facilitation through onsite
greenhouse programs at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Chena Hot Springs Resort, and
Pike’s Landing in Fairbanks.
The greenhouse that has been selected is Model XA-300 manufactured by Poly-Tex of Castle
Rock, Minnesota, the same design currently in use at Chena Hot Springs. The greenhouse is
selected for its ease of construction, affordability, and environmental control. The greenhouse is
completely designed as a component system and delivered as a bolt-together package with
common tools and local labor. Co-I Werner of UAF-CEAL will oversee onsite construction of the
greenhouse. Other considerations that resulted in the choice of this structure include longevity,
shipping and transportation, and the utility of the structure for many types of crops. The
greenhouse at Chena Hot Springs has been in operation for four years as part of a successful year-
round production system for hydroponic lettuce and tomatoes. The XA-300 has double-walled
polycarbonate side and end walls and a double-layer inflate roof system. The greenhouse as
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 10 of 19 10/7/2009
designed has withstood the extreme climatic conditions of Interior Alaska, including 100 mph
winds and a temperature range of -65 ºF to +95 ºF. Experience in Alaska shows the greenhouse
will remain in good condition for many years. The temperatures, daylengths, soils, and other
related characteristics of Galena are very similar to those in Fairbanks. The similarity of the two
environments will prove useful for crop recommendation and climate management. The UAF-
CEAL research and experience with the Chena Hot Springs project has resolved many of the
challenges of small-scale production in rural communities, such as temperature control, crop
methods, and environmental suitability of different crop varieties.
It is important to note that there are two major types of energy requirements for a greenhouse—
heat and electricity—which creates challenges for a greenhouse project in rural Alaska since both
electric and heating costs are very high and far above the national average. The project outlined in
this proposal takes advantage of the recovered heat from the power plant, thus sidestepping at the
outset a significant obstacle to development. As far as electricity usage, the project is designed to
minimize energy requirements. Greenhouses use electricity for lighting, running motors (pumps
and fans), and electronics to monitor and control systems. The lighting load is the most
significant. This project will strive to minimize the lighting requirements of the greenhouse
operation in three ways: (1) the natural daylight of spring, summer, and fall in the high latitudes
of Interior Alaska will be exploited, (2) the focus on lettuce, leafy greens, and other starts in the
early spring does not require intensive lighting, and (3) LED lighting systems, though more
expensive to purchase, require only one-third the power of more traditional bulbs. UAF-CEAL
research on greenhouse lighting systems shows that the draw for a greenhouse of this size will be
no more than 24 to 36 kilowatt/hours per day. The total cost of electricity for the March-to-
October operation of the greenhouse is estimated at $4,536. The project is also expected to use
12,500 gallons of water each month. That figure is based on an industry standard for square-
footage, and results in an annual cost of approximately $6,000.
This proposal represents an expansion of the EPA-funded project that is focused directly on
construction and operation of the Galena greenhouse. This proposal expands the focus to
statewide outreach and is designed to assess the potential for similar greenhouse projects
throughout rural Alaska. The staff time and travel in this proposal are required to move the
concept of community agriculture beyond the Galena project to statewide development. This
proposal calls for additional staff time for project staff Werner, Coen, Attla, and Schmid, to be
rolled into the existing two-year workplan. The proposal also calls for funding to support Mager,
Pedersen, and Karlsson on post-project analyses and report preparation, as well as six Galena
high school student employees to work on the project. The students will make one trip each year
to Fairbanks for training at the UAF greenhouses. This investment of staff support builds local
capacity, helps to ensure a successful project, and will create a template (including “lessons
learned”) for additional greenhouse projects throughout rural Alaska.
In addition to his work on the Galena project, co-I Werner will conduct feasibility studies in six
communities in different regions in rural Alaska to evaluate their potential for greenhouse
projects. Selection criteria for the communities to be studied include existing local support for
community gardening, available infrastructure (e.g., heat recovery equipment in the power plant),
and climatic and environmental conditions. One individual from each community will travel to
Fairbanks for training at the UAF greenhouses, which will help build support and local capacity
for the projects should they be developed in each community. The feasibility studies will
demonstrate the potential for similar projects in different regions of the state, while the final
project report in Galena will provide a hands-on template for such projects.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 11 of 19 10/7/2009
A crucial component to the project’s final report will be the economic/feasibility analysis
prepared by Markus Mager, Energy Analyst at ACEP. Mager’s 2008 report, “Economics of
Greenhouse Production in Alaska,” evaluated the potential for agricultural production at
greenhouses (such as the one at Chena Hot Springs) based on projected yield, market demand,
climatic and environmental conditions, and comparison with costs of imported food. The hard
data that will be generated by operation of the Galena greenhouse and Mager’s subsequent report
will prove invaluable to economic analyses of overall project feasibility throughout rural Alaska.
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 greenhouse will be located on a city lot adjacent to the swimming pool and behind the city
office. The City of Galena has agreed to provide use of the lot at no cost to the project. The value
of this leveraged resource is $20,000. A letter of support is attached.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Identify and discussion of potential barriers
N/A
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will
be addressed:
Threatened or Endangered species
Habitat issues
Wetlands and other protected areas
Archaeological and historical resources
Land development constraints
Telecommunications interference
Aviation considerations
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and discuss other potential barriers
As part of the final proposal/award review with the Environmental Protection Agency, the project
team was required to evaluate whether the Galena greenhouse project would have an effect on:
1) Threatened or endangered species: Ted Swem of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
Fairbanks determined there are no threatened or endangered species that may be impacted by the
project.
2) Historic properties: Tom Gillispie is a staff archaeologist at TCC and qualified principal
investigator under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic
Preservation, as recognized by the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). With
assistance from the Alaska SHPO, Gillispie consulted the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 12 of 19 10/7/2009
(AHRS) and found that there are no known historic sites within 0.65 miles of the Area of
Potential Effects for the proposed greenhouse. The nearest listed site is the Galena White Alice
Communication System (AHRS# NUL-063). This was a Cold War-era communications facility
built by the U.S. Air Force. It has been demolished. Based on the AHRS search, Gillispie
determined the greenhouse project poses no potential impact to known historic properties.
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
Please see attached budget documents for detailed information. The proposal budget is $313,280.
Additional funding comes via a pending award from EPA in the amount of $287, 876 (proposal
available upon request) and $32,800 in the form of the city lot for the Galena greenhouse and
TCC staff time. Equipment costs included in this AEA proposal include double-walled
polycarbonate greenhouse walls, chosen for their durability in sub-arctic environments and
selected based on co-I Werner’s extensive experience with greenhouse design and manufacturers,
and flow valves and plumbing equipment required to connect the greenhouse to the district
heating loop. Staff time and travel were calculated based on Werner’s extensive experience with
greenhouse projects and required labor hours.
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.)
Operating costs have been determined by co-I Werner based on operations of greenhouses of
similar size and climatic conditions and are estimated as follows: (1) electricity: 36 kW-hr/day x
225 days x $.56/kW-hr = $4,536; (2) water: 12,500 gal/mo. x 8 mo. x $.06/gal = $6,000.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 13 of 19 10/7/2009
N/A
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.
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
The public benefits of the Galena greenhouse project include: (1) economic development and job
creation in communities where both are often hard to come by, (2) a source of fresh, affordable
produce, (3) health benefits from eating nutritious food, (4) reduced greenhouse gas emissions
and reduced landfill waste resulting from lower volumes of packaged food having to be imported
via airplane and barge, (5) educational opportunities for schoolchildren, (6) community gardening
opportunities, especially for elders who might not otherwise have access to gardens and
equipment.
Economic development:
Galena is a community of 610 people (roughly two-thirds Native and one-third non-Native)
located on the Yukon River in the roadless Alaska Interior about 270 air miles from Fairbanks.
Galena receives seasonal freight delivery by barge. Airplanes provide a costly but year-round
connection for both people and freight to Fairbanks. In general, residents of Galena share a
common lifestyle of subsistence hunting and fishing. Job opportunities in the region are few and
local per capita income is typically low. Year-round employment is rare. Seasonal work often
involves construction and wildfire fighting. Economic development is a challenge for Galena and
most other rural communities due to limited access and the vast distances separating the
communities from goods, services, and urban centers. The local economy has been negatively
affected in recent years by the closure of the Air Force base and the shutdown of the nearby
Illinois Creek gold mine.
Canned, processed, frozen, and boxed food is flown to Galena at great expense. Nutritional
quality of fresh produce degrades quickly as it is shipped and stored for extended periods. Rural
Alaskans pay more for “food at home for a week” than those living in urban areas of the state,
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 14 of 19 10/7/2009
according to the State Department of Labor and Workforce Development which published its
most recent figures in July 2008. Figures specific to Galena are not available, but cost data for
remote communities with the same year-round air access and seasonal barge access provide a
reasonable comparison. The average weekly cost of food for a family of four in three rural
communities (Barrow, $288.57; Nome, $223.48; and Kotzebue, $261.73) is 49% higher than the
average cost in the state’s three largest urban areas (Anchorage, $134.05; Fairbanks, $127.59; and
Mat-Su, $118.64). A July 2009 survey of prices at the two stores in Galena where produce is
available (Sweetsir’s and Johnson’s Liquor Store) shows the extent of the problem facing
Alaskans in rural communities—a one-pound case of small tomatoes sells for $7.36, two heads of
lettuce cost $15.21, a medium-sized onion costs $2.46, and spinach sells for $7.97 per pound.
With the high transportation costs in rural Alaska and the paucity of income-generating activities,
the need for local agricultural production is immense. The knowledgebase and suitable facilities
to successfully provide for a small- to medium-sized community, however, do not currently exist
in rural Alaska. Some rural residents successfully grow gardens for personal consumption, but not
on the scale to support an entire community. This proposal will result in lower food costs for
people of Galena, employment opportunities, and will represent a sustainable economic
enterprise.
Food distribution:
The produce generated from the greenhouse project will be distributed to the community in a
number of ways:
1) The greenhouse will be a wholesale distributor for the two local stores, Sweetsir’s and
Johnson’s Liquor Store. This project is intended to support the local economy by
providing produce to the stores at reduced costs—it is important to note the project is not
intended to be a competitor to the stores. The wholesale prices of the produce will depend
on a number of unknown factors (e.g., quantity produced), but will almost certainly be
considerably less than what the two stores are currently paying to have “fresh” produce
flown in from Fairbanks. “Economics of Greenhouse Production in Alaska,” a 2008 report
by Markus Mager of the UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power, found that for a
greenhouse of comparable size to the one named in this proposal the break-even price for
a head of lettuce is $2.01. Since a head of lettuce cost $7.60 in Galena in July 2009, the
margin for economic viability is significant.
2) The produce will be made available at wholesale rates to the cafeteria at the elementary,
middle, and high school, as well as the Galena Interior Learning Academy (GILA). Rand
Rosecrans, chef at the Two Seasons Dining Hall at GILA, has committed to using produce
from the greenhouse project whenever possible. With an enrollment of 170 students,
Rosecrans serves about 3,500 to 4,000 meals a week. The use of locally produced
tomatoes, to cite just one example, will all but eliminate the importation of canned
tomatoes, tomato sauce, and tomato paste, resulting in lower food costs for GILA, less
solid waste in the city landfill, and healthier, tastier meals for the students.
3) The Galena Elders Assisted Living Facility is scheduled to open in November 2009, with
space for nine residents. The long-term facility plan calls for expanding capacity to
nineteen residents by 2019. Produce will be made available to the facility at wholesale
cost.
It is expected that at the end of the project’s second year the sale of produce will create a revenue
stream sufficient to provide for the continued employment of the project staff members and to
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 15 of 19 10/7/2009
cover all associated costs of operation of the greenhouse. The Mager greenhouse economics
report cited above found that the sale of lettuce at $3 per head (roughly one dollar above cost)
would result in potential income of $146,755. It is expected that the Galena greenhouse and
accompanying outdoor field will produce vegetables of comparable quality and quantity to
economically justify the project’s continued operation.
Various research has shown that in the U.S., an estimated 10% of fossil fuel use is attributable to
the food industry. Data from Frontier Flying Service, the primary air carrier servicing Galena
with eighteen flights per week, show that approximately 112 gallons of aviation fuel are used to
transport 5,000 pounds of food, resulting in total CO2 emissions of more than one ton. According
to the 2005 report, “Fighting Global Warming at the Farmer’s Market,” every 10,000 pounds of
locally produced food results in just 0.118 kg of direct CO2 emissions, compared to 11 kg for
imported food.
Once this project achieves food production and distribution, a primary and ongoing goal of the
project will be to track and calculate:
the total greenhouse food production in pounds;
the amount and cost of imported freight received by Sweetsir’s, Johnson’s Liquor
Store, GILA, and the city schools as compared to the same period in previous years;
and
the amount of CO2 emissions reductions as a result of the increased use of locally
produced food.
Reduction of vehicle miles traveled:
Experience with the greenhouse at Chena Hot Springs shows that a greenhouse of comparable
size to the one named in this proposal is capable of producing thousands of pounds of produce in
a single summer season. Extending the growing season from March to October each year will
result in an estimated 10,000 pounds of produce from the Galena greenhouse project with a
corresponding reduction in imported food via airplane.
Solid waste management:
Due to the high cost of importing both soil and nutrients, vermicomposting and composting will
be employed as part of the greenhouse project at the city school and GILA. This activity will also
provide additional carbon sequestration. Compostable food and yard waste contributes to 25% of
a typical community’s solid waste stream, while paper contributes to 33%. This means that
roughly two-thirds of the waste stream can be composted. Vermicomposting is ideal for cold
locations because it is simple and can be done indoors year-round. According to calculations
based on a silt loam soil with 7.7% organic matter, 2.5 pounds of carbon is sequestered. For a
1,000 square foot garden, that is more than a ton of carbon being sequestered.
The greenhouse project would additionally keep food cans, boxes, wrappers, and other solid
waste associated with imported food out of the landfill. In order to quantify the amount of solid
waste reduction, the project will use the GILA cafeteria as a model to track pounds of disposed
solid waste from identical periods over the three years of the project.
Agricultural management:
The greenhouse project will result in a sustainable agricultural enterprise that has numerous
benefits for the community. Data gathered during operation of the greenhouse will be used to
calculate greenhouse gas emissions reductions and will provide a model agricultural enterprise
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 16 of 19 10/7/2009
that can be replicated in other rural Alaska communities.
Linkages with public health benefits:
Although subsistence activities such as hunting, fishing, and gathering contribute substantially to
local diets in rural Alaska, processed foods are consumed in even greater quantities according to a
Traditional Diet Survey conducted by the Alaska Native Health Board in 2004. Results from this
survey of the Tanana Chiefs Conference region showed that Hi-C™ and Tang™ were consumed
in greater quantities, per year, than any other caloric source at 1,005 gallons or 8,044 pounds.
Next in line was sugared soda pop with 831 gallons consumed in a year. Processed foods are easy
to transport, do not risk freezing, and are cheaper than more nutritious, perishable alternatives. A
high risk factor for Alaska Native youth is obesity. According to the 2004 Traditional Diet
Survey, 31% of Alaska Native students drink at least one soda each week, compared with 19% of
White students. Only 32% of Alaska Native students said they were active for at least 60 minutes
per day on at least five of the previous seven days compared with 47% of White students. A full
27% of Alaska Native students watch at least three hours of television on an average school day,
compared with 19% of White students. These factors contribute to a higher risk of obesity and
diabetes for Alaska Native students. This project—both the production of vegetables for local
consumption and educational efforts by UAF Cooperative Extension Service—will result in
alternatives for healthier eating habits by the children and adults of Galena.
Replicability:
Communities throughout rural Alaska are similar to Galena in a number of ways. All produce
power using diesel generators, but only about half of the communities have heat recovery systems
installed. Co-locating an appropriately sized greenhouse with the power plant to tap into the
recovered heat stream would be easily accomplished, and the experience of the Fairbanks
greenhouses and the Galena project would provide a knowledge base for replicating the project.
The reason some communities do not have a heat recovery system installed is usually because the
power plant is physically isolated from other buildings and thus there is no structure to utilize the
heat. In these cases, installation of jacket water around the generator and plumbing to divert
recovered heat to a co-located greenhouse is feasible. The economic and logistical viability of the
Galena project will be a model to determine how and whether such a project can be replicated in
other communities.
The greenhouse project will benefit everyone who buys vegetables at Galena’s two stores. They
will receive a fresher, healthier, tastier product at a fraction of the cost of what was previously
available. The project will similarly benefit every student who eats in the cafeteria of the city
schools and GILA. Students will also benefit from the educational opportunities to learn about
nutrition, sustainable local economies, northern agricultural practices, the fuel costs of food
imports, and other important topics.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 17 of 19 10/7/2009
Much like the Chena Hot Springs greenhouse that has become a sustainable economic enterprise,
it is expected that the end of the two-year Galena project the greenhouse will be producing
vegetables in sufficient quantity to be sustainable. As Galena is a hub community of the region,
the shipping of produce to surrounding communities has the potential to contribute to the project’s
long-term viability. In working with the community of Galena, two possible business structures
have been considered: (1) establish the greenhouse as a non-profit organization that will be
operated in a manner consistent with its mission and to cover its cost of operation, and (2) TCC
will lease the operation to a local entrepreneur who is then responsible for its operation as a for-
profit enterprise, with leasing revenues reinvested in the community. It is important to note that no
decisions on the long-term management have been made, but will undergo careful consideration
by all project partners.
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 EPA-funded project has a start date of January 2010. Project staff are prepared to initiate
procurement of the greenhouse and related equipment at that time. This proposal carries a start
date of July 2010 (in accordance with the funding schedule in the program RFP) and its workplan
is integrated with the EPA-project for maximum coordination and completion of tasks. See
project schedule in Section 3.2.
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.
Project partners include: Tanana Chiefs Conference, Alaska Center for Energy and Power,
Louden Tribal Council, City of Galena, Galena Interior Learning Academy, UAF Controlled
Environment Agriculture Laboratory, and UAF Cooperative Extension Service. The project
builds and leverages partnerships across these multiple stakeholder groups in a manner that
ensures community sustainability, which is of vital importance in rural Alaska. The challenges
faced by residents of rural Alaska communities include high energy costs, lack of economic
opportunities, high cost and limited selection of food (especially nutritious alternatives to heavily
processed and preserved food), and limited knowledge base and informational resources that
would facilitate development of projects for community-wide benefit. This project taps the
institutional expertise of the above groups in the following areas: community organizing, energy
production, education, agriculture, employment, and project management and administration.
This level of cooperation will not only provide a sustainable source of healthy food, but will forge
partnerships that can positively benefit the community for years to come. Letters of support from
the City of Galena and Louden Tribal Council are attached.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 3
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 18 of 19 10/7/2009
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much you want in grant funds Include any investments to date and funding sources,
how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an
applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form – GrantBudget3.doc
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the
project.
See attached.
ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund
energy authority Grant Application Round 3
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
Signature
Title
Date
Andrew Parkerson-Gray
Director,UAF Office of Sponsored Programs
AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 22 of 22 10/7/2009
Renewable Energy Fund Round 3
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 10-7-09
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project phases.
The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
Applicant note: The energy resource utilized in this proposal is the recovered
heat from the diesel generators in the City of Galena power plant. This proposal
does not seek funding for developing new sources of energy, nor for
construction of new power generating facilities. Accordingly, most of the fields
on this worksheet are not applicable to the proposal.
1. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. The energy resource utilized in this proposal is the
recovered heat from the diesel generators in the
City of Galena power plant. No interruption in the
operation of the power plant and production of
recoverable heat is anticipated.
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 5 generators
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other n/a
iii. Generator/boilers/other type n/a
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other n/a
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.46 kW-hr/gal
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor n/a
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor n/a
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh] 4,387,284 kW
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 574,806
Other n/a
iii. Peak Load 1001 kW
iv. Average Load 501 kW
v. Minimum Load n/a
vi. Efficiency n/a
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 3
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 10-7-09
vii. Future trends n/a
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] n/a
ii. Electricity [kWh] n/a
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] n/a
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] n/a
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] n/a
vi. Other n/a
3. Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kWh or MMBtu/hr]
n/a
b) Proposed Annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] n/a
ii. Heat [MMBtu] n/a
c) Proposed Annual fuel Usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] n/a
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] n/a
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] n/a
iv. Other n/a
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system n/a
b) Development cost n/a
c) Annual O&M cost of new system n/a
d) Annual fuel cost n/a
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity n/a
ii. Heat n/a
iii. Transportation n/a
b) Price of displaced fuel n/a
c) Other economic benefits n/a
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits See Section 5 of Grant Application form.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 3
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 10-7-09
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale n/a
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio n/a
Payback n/a
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09 Feasibility Workplan - Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Attached Milestone list. ) Identify six communities for feasibility study July 2010 $2,000 $ $2,000 Feasibility study Y1 (3 communities) September 2010 $11,065 $ $11,065 Feasibility report Y1 December 2010 $5,354 $ $5,354 Feasibility study Y2 (3 communities) September 2011 $11,065 $ $11,065 Feasibility report Y2 / Final report December 2011 $7,254 $ $7,254 $ $ $ $ $ TOTALS $36,738 $36,738 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $16,707 $ $16,707 Travel & Per Diem $16,101 $ $16,101 Equipment $0 $ $0 Materials & Supplies $0 $ $0 Contractual Services $3,930 $ $3,930 Construction Services $ $ Other $ $ TOTALS $36,738 $ $36,738 Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, and Construction)- Add additional pages as needed
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09 Construction Workplan - Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Attached Milestone list. ) Procurement, shipping July 2010 $63,870 $ $63,870 Site prep / Construction August 2010 $22,884 $ $22,884 Pre-project engineering assessment August 2010 $7,067 $ $7,067 Hiring / Training August 2010 $61,356 $ $61,356 Procurement Y2 operating supplies February 2011 $27,289 $ $27,289 Hiring / Training August 2011 $61,750 $ $61,750 Mid-project engineering assessment August 2011 $7,287 $ $7,287 Greenhouse operation November 2011 $17,323 See Section 2.6 of Grant Application Form. $17,323 Final reporting February 2012 $7,716 $7,716 TOTALS $276,542 $276,542 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $180,289 $ $180,289 Travel & Per Diem $34,868 $ $34,868 Equipment $27,000 $ $27,000 Materials & Supplies $17,030 $ $17,030 Contractual Services $17,355 $ $17,355 Construction Services $ Other $ TOTALS $276,542 $ $276,542 Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, and Construction)- Add additional pages as needed
UAF Budget Narrative
Greenhouse Feasibility and Applications In Rural Alaska
Senior Personnel. Funding to support 10 hours per year for PI Gwen Holdmann; 350 hours
per year for co-I Jeff Werner, the greenhouse lead for UAF (the breakdown of duties for Werner
on the project is 200 hours per year on the Galena greenhouse project and 150 hours total on
three feasibility studies per year for the two-year project); 80 hours per year for co-I Ross Coen,
the administrative lead for UAF; and 30 hours per year for co-I Meriam Karlsson, to provide
technical and administrative assistance on the greenhouse project activities. Per UAF policy,
staff receive leave benefits at a rate of 20.2%, calculated on salary. Total cost to project:
$43.808.
Other Personnel. Funding to support 80 hours per year for the two-year project for Jack
Schmid, UAF research engineer, for technical assistance and evaluation of the heat recovery
system at the Galena power plant. Funding to support 80 hours for Markus Mager, UAF Energy
Analyst, and 40 hours for Fran Pedersen, UAF Technical Editor, in the second year only for
post-project reporting and publications. Per UAF policy, staff receive leave benefits at a rate of
20.2%, calculated on salary. Total cost to project: $12,495.
Fringe Benefits. Staff benefits for UAF are negotiated annually with the Office of Naval
Research and are set at 44.1% for staff, 28.2% for faculty and executive, and 57.0% for
classified staff. Total cost to project: 80,338
Permanent Equipment and Commodities. All equipment and most commodities are included
in the sub-award to Tanana Chiefs Conference.
Contractual Services. Costs include outreach and report publication funds plus other project
costs. Total cost to project: $6,875.
Travel. Funding is requested to support travel for: Werner to make four trips per year to Galena;
Schmid to make one trip per year to Galena; Coen to make two trips per year to Galena; and
Werner to make three trips per year as part of the greenhouse feasibility studies. All costs are
estimated based on current prices and government and UAF Board of Regents policy. Cost to
project: $28,843.
Subaward. This project includes a subaward to Tanana Chiefs Conference, the Alaska Native
non-profit consortium which includes the village of Galena. The TCC role in the project (see
attached budget narrative) includes acquisition of equipment and commodities, employment and
travel of student employees, travel for village representatives as part of the greenhouse
feasibility studies, and general facilitation/implementation of the greenhouse project in Galena.
This work will take place under the administrative leadership of Charlisa Attla, TCC Director of
Special Projects. Cost to project: $197,224.
.
TCC Budget Narrative
Greenhouse Feasibility and Applications In Rural Alaska
Senior Personnel. Funding to support 80 hours per year for the two-year project for
Charlisa Attla, TCC Director of Special Projects, who will perform administrative duties
on TCC travel and acquisition of equipment under this proposal. Total cost to Project:
$6,288.
Other Personnel. Funding to support summer employment for 6 high school students
in Galena to work full-time for 12 weeks (480 hours) in both years of the project. Total
cost to Project: $90,548.
Fringe Benefits. Staff benefits for TCC are negotiated annually with the Internal
Revenue Service and are set at 20.5%. Total cost to Project: $19,852.
Permanent Equipment. Funding is requested for $15,000 for double-walled
polycarbonate greenhouse walls, and $12,000 for flow control valves and related
plumbing equipment to connect the greenhouse to the Galena utilidor. Total cost to
Project: $27,000.
Commodities. Funding is requested for $3,930 for fertilizer, $3,930 for pesticides,
$5,240 for irrigation supplies, and $3,930 for miscellaneous garden supplies. Total cost
to Project: $17,030.
Shipping. Funding of $10,480 is requested to transport the greenhouse from the
manufacturer in Minnesota to Fairbanks.
Travel. Funding is requested to support travel for: the six high school student employees
to make one trip per year to Fairbanks for training at the UAF greenhouses; and one
representative from each of the six villages undergoing feasibility studies to make one
trip to Fairbanks for training at the UAF greenhouses. Total cost to Project: $22,126.
Lab Analysis. Funding of $3,900 is requested for soil and water sampling at the six
sites undergoing feasibility studies.
Total cost to project: $197,224