HomeMy WebLinkAboutShaktoolikk Wind AppAlaska Village Electric Cooperative
Application for Renewable Energy Fund Grant
Alaska Energy Authority
Shaktoolik, Alaska
Wind Project Construction
November 11, 2008
Table of Contents
Application
1
Resumes
2
Cost Worksheet 3
Budget Form
4
Authority
5
Supplemental
Materials 6
Tab 1
Grant Application
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 13 9/2/2008
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Type of Entity:
Electric Utility
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Physical Address
[same]
Telephone
(907)565‐5531
Fax
(907)562‐4086
Email
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Brent Petrie
Title
Manager, Community Development
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
(907)565‐5358
Fax
(907)561‐2388
Email
bpetrie@avec.org
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)
X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer, or
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 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.)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 2 of 13 9/3/2008
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
Provide a brief 1-2 page overview of your project.
2.1 PROJECT TYPE
Describe the type of project you are proposing, (Reconnaissance; Resource Assessment/
Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design; Final Design and Permitting; and/or Construction) as
well as the kind of renewable energy you intend to use. Refer to Section 1.5 of RFA.
AVEC proposes a project to complete the Final Design and Permitting and Construction of a system to
add electrical generation from wind power to the existing electrical generation and distribution system
in Shaktoolik.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a one paragraph description of your project. At a minimum include the project location,
communities to be served, and who will be involved in the grant project.
Our project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of
two wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the
community of Shaktoolik. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will
provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the
general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind
turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide Northwind 100
wind turbines and startup and commissioning services.
2.3 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. Include a project cost summary that includes an estimated total cost
through construction.
The project would require $2,727,960 to complete. Design and permitting would cost $210,000.
Construction would require $ 2,486,460. Commissioning would require $ 31,500. AVEC will provide an
in‐kind contribution of $10,500 and a cash contribution of $251,796.
2.4 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial benefits that will result from this project, including an estimate of economic
benefits(such as reduced fuel costs) and a description of other benefits to the Alaskan public.
The primary financial benefit from this project will be reduced fuel costs to the people of
Shaktoolik. Simulations of wind resource versus load demand result in an estimated gross fuel
savings of almost 28,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year at the Shaktoolik plant, from efficiency
improvements due to new automated switchgear, from diesel‐powered generation being displaced
by wind, and by displacing diesel‐fired hot water heating with excess electrical energy from the
wind turbines.
Global Energy Concepts conducted an independent study of wind turbine availability for AVEC. That
study concluded that gross production estimates of energy production from wind turbines should
be reduced by 18% to account for downtime. AVEC has anecdotal evidence to indicate that
downtime is decreasing with experience and is currently somewhat less than that figure at existing
Northwind 100 sites.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 13 9/3/2008
Nevertheless, for the purposes of this grant application, we will reduce expected fuel savings for
electricity production by 18%, that being the most recent independently estimated figure available.
Reducing the gross estimate by 18%, we expect to save almost 27,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year at
Shaktoolik. At AVEC’s 2008 actual average price of fuel at Shaktoolik of $4.43/gallon, savings will exceed
$160,000 per year (over an average course of 20 years assuming a 4% escalation).
In addition to the direct fuel reduction are the benefits of:
- reduced long‐term dependence on outside sources of energy;
- reduced exposure to fuel price volatility;
- reduced air pollution resulting from reducing fossil fuel combustion;
- reduced possibility of spills from fuel transport and storage; and
- reduced overall carbon footprint and its contribution to climate change.
2.5 PROJECT COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Include a summary of your project’s total costs and benefits below.
2.5.1 Total Project Cost
(Including estimates through construction.)
$2,727,960
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $2,465,664
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $262,296
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) 2,727,960
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) ($160,000) per year
2.5.6 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.)
To be determined
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.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative’s (AVEC) project management approach to this project, and to its
overall energy upgrade program, is to utilize a team approach consisting of AVEC staff, external
consultants and construction management contractors.
AVEC provides a project team from its operating staff. The President and CEO acts as Program Executive
and maintains ultimate authority programmatically and financially. The manager of the community
development group acts as program manager. The group provides internal focus and coordination of
special projects including project development, planning, construction coordination, and reporting.
Resources include a project coordinator, contracts clerk, accountant, engineer, and community liaison.
The vice president and manager of AVEC’s engineering group provide technical input on generation and
distribution issues to the team. Additionally, the engineering group provides specifications, design and
drawings for AVEC construction of diesel power plants and distribution systems. The manager of
operation and construction provides construction management and commissioning input on behalf of
new construction performed by AVEC staff. The manager of administrative services provides support in
accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with RUS guidelines.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 13 9/3/2008
The project management team’s structure is designed to provide flexibility for the AVEC participants.
They have operational responsibilities to the Cooperative as well as project development
responsibilities. The functional‐interface relationships allow engineering tasks, village government and
public relations tasks, procurement functions, and internal construction operations to be dovetailed into
the project development process. Cross utilization of talent and resources is an advantage to the project
delivery process, providing economies of scale for utilization of project resources.
For project delivery, an amalgamated team approach is utilized. To support the AVEC team, design
consultants and construction managers (CM) are selected. Both disciplines are derived from a resource
bank of professional firms with applicable histories of performance in rural Alaska. The construction
manager works concurrently with the design consultant through design development to provide
constructability insight and value engineering to maximize the overall effectiveness of the final
construction documents.
Concurrent with design development, material and equipment procurement packages are formulated by
the CM in collaboration with AVEC’s purchasing manager. Each package is competitively procured or
issued from cooperative materials. Purchase orders are formulated with delivery dates consistent with
dates required for barge or air transport consolidation. Multiple materials and/or equipment are
detailed for consolidated shipments to rural staging points, where secondary transport to the village
destination is provided. The CM tracks the shipments and provides handling services to and around the
destination project sites.
The CM is responsible for the construction activities for all project components of the facility upgrade.
Local labor forces are utilized to the maximum extent possible to construct the projects. Local job
training is provided as a concurrent operation under the management and direction of the CM. All
construction costs, direct and indirect are reimbursed on a cost only reimbursement to the CM or paid
directly by AVEC.
For the facilities applied for in this application, AVEC is responsible for managing the commissioning
process in content with the CM, designers and vendors. That entails testing and training of operational
personnel, as well as providing for all contract closeout documents.
AVEC’s concern and objective is to have a managed project delivery approach from inception through
operation.
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.)
Grant Award Announcement: July 1, 2009
Authorization to Proceed: July 15, 2009
Order Wind Turbines and Towers: August 3, 2009
Complete Permitting: January 10, 2010
Complete Civil Design: February 15, 2010
Hire Installation Contractor: March 1, 2010
Turbines Ready to Ship: May 17, 2010
Complete Civil Works: June 10, 2010
Turbines On Site: June 14, 2010
Complete Turbine Erection and Electrical Works: July 12, 2010
Complete Turbine Commissioning: August 2, 2010
Complete Secondary Load Controller Commissioning: September 1, 2010
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 13 9/3/2008
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
Order Wind Turbines and Towers: Because six months is required before the turbines and
towers are ready to ship and because the authorization to proceed from AEA will not be issued
until July 2009, constructing the project in 2009 will be difficult. The turbines and towers would
be ordered as soon as possible to ensure that the turbines and towers can be shipped early in
the summer of 2010.
Complete Permitting: Permitting needs to be completed before the design is completed and
before a contractor is hired so that the contractor understands the permitting commitments
before costing the project. Permitting will be started soon after the Notice to Proceed and will
be completed by February 15, 2010.
Complete Civil Works: The site work needs to be done before the turbines arrive in Shaktoolik.
To ensure that the work is completed, a contractor will be selected by March 1, 2010, and site
work equipment will be transported to Shaktoolik on the first barge of the year.
Complete Turbine Commissioning: The commissioning needs to be done early enough in the
season to allow time to commission and tune the secondary load controller. To ensure that the
turbine commissioning occurs in 2010, the project will be constructed by the middle of summer
2010.
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.
AVEC will ultimately be responsible for successful completion of the project, using partners that have
successfully installed similar systems in the recent past. Electrical system engineering will be
subcontracted, using current internal procurement practices and selection of engineering service
providers from prequalified organizations. STG will provide the wind turbine foundation on a
design/build basis, as they have done on previous similar projects. STG will also provide all ancillary
electrical equipment and install the wind turbine and the electrical balance of plant.
The 100kW Northwind 100 wind turbines from Northern Power will be used. The permanent magnet,
direct drive Northwind 100 is the latest wind turbine model from Northern Power, based on earlier
NW100 wind turbine models that AVEC has installed and operated in wind/diesel applications for
several years now. Developed in conjunction with NASA, NREL, and NSF specifically for remote use in
extreme environments, the Northwind 100 embodies the most recent design practices in the industry.
Northern Power’s experience with wind/diesel control systems complements AVEC’s.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 13 9/3/2008
AVEC will assign a project manager to the project. One responsibility of the project manager will be to
compile periodic progress reports for use by the Authority. Weekly and monthly project coordination
meetings will be held with the project team to track progress and address issues as they arise.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
In general, logistics, construction activities and weather all contain risks. AVEC routinely purchases
Builder’s Risk insurance to mitigate its exposure to these risks. In addition to outside insurance, the
experienced team of AVEC and STG with projects much like this one in similar circumstances reduces
much of the risk.
Logistics is a routine issue in rural Alaska. AVEC and STG both have extensive experience with the
logistical conditions found in this Alaskan village. Advance planning and allowing time for contingencies
is crucial to success in such environments.
Construction can be challenging in rural Alaska. Both AVEC and STG routinely conduct construction
operations in villages much like this one.
Weather is another challenge when working in rural Alaska. AVEC and STG have worked in this area for
years. As with logistics, allowing time for contingencies is important.
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 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 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.
Shaktoolik is a high‐value, class 4 wind regime for wind power generation. During 2007, 809,700 kWh of
energy was generated at the Shaktoolik power plant using 58,600 gallons of diesel fuel. Two Northwind
100 wind turbines generating over 540,000 kWh per year could displace up to 50% of the energy
normally generated by diesel, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water
plant.
The village of Shaktoolik has abundant winds but finds its fuel supply limited and costly. Solar power
from photovoltaic solar arrays is a potential alternative, but suffers from higher capital cost and lower
resource availability than wind at this site.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 13 9/3/2008
Production of energy using tidal motion in the sea is a newly developing possibility. Technology to make
use of tidal motion is as yet immature. Even after initial development activities have been completed,
the sub‐arctic maritime environment of much of Alaska will provide additional challenges to the use of
this developing technology.
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 existing power plant at Shaktoolik consists of three separate diesel‐powered engine generator sets,
of 207 kW, 175 kW, and 250 kW capacity. These gensets were originally installed and started up in 1994,
1984, and 1988, and most recently rebuilt in 2006, 1991, and 2003. The overall plant generated 13.80
kWh for each gallon of fuel consumed in 2007.
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 existing power plant produces electrical energy by burning diesel fuel in engine‐driven generators.
By adding a wind turbine to the existing system, we expect the project to provide the same amount of
electrical energy using substantially less diesel fuel than is true today. In addition to offsetting much of
the diesel‐generated electricity, we also expect to use whatever wind‐generated energy that exceeds
electrical demand to heat water, also displacing diesel fuel that is presently burned in boilers.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Shaktoolik sits on the north shore of Norton Sound. It is subject to subzero temperatures, extended
periods of darkness and blowing snow. Reliable electric service is essential to maintaining home heating
systems necessary to safeguard the health of the population, especially the elderly and infants.
Shaktoolik is classified as an isolated village, relying on air transportation for delivery of medical goods
and transport of sick or injured individuals or mothers nearing childbirth. Reliable electric service is
essential to maintaining vital navigation aides for the safe operation of aircraft. Runway lights,
automated weather observation stations, VASI lights, DME’s and VOR’s are all powered by electricity.
Emergency medical service is provided in Shaktoolik by a health aide. Therefore medical problems and
emergencies must be relayed by telephone or by some other communication means for outside
assistance. Operation of the telephone system requires electricity. Reliable telephone service requires
reliable electric service.
Piped water and sewer systems exist in both villages. Reliable electric service is required for the
continuous operation of the water and wastewater systems and to prevent freezing of the systems
which will cause extensive damage and interruptions in service.
Shaktoolik is subject to long periods of darkness. Reliable electric service is essential for the operation of
home lighting, streetlights and security lighting. Children walk to school and outside lighting helps them
find their way and be on the look out for hazards and in the extreme case, polar bears.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 13 9/3/2008
We expect the addition of wind turbines to the electric generation system to reduce the amount of
diesel fuel used on the island for power generation and for heating.
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
Renewable energy technology description
The system we plan includes two 100kW Northwind 100 wind turbines, along with electric boilers to
make use of excess electrical energy produced when the wind‐based generating capacity exceeds the
electrical demand.
The Northwind 100 represents a new generation of wind turbines. Its permanent‐magnet, direct‐drive
architecture is the current state of the art for advanced wind turbine design. That architecture
overcomes many of the challenges of connecting old‐style induction generators to electrical distribution
grids. The permanent‐magnet generator is connected to a full power converter that converts its
variable, low‐frequency, alternating‐current output to direct current, then back to tightly regulated
alternating current for output to the grid. The permanent‐magnet generator requires no reactive power
to energize its magnetic field, removing that influence from the grid. The power converter allows a
broad degree of control over the form and quality of the power output to the grid. The capacitance and
active controls in the power converter allow reactive power to either be consumed or produced by the
Northwind 100 regardless of its real power output, even in the complete absence of wind. The turbine
controls allow power output to be controlled by dynamic grid conditions, including automatic output
reduction or complete shutdown, regardless of wind conditions. The combination of advanced controls
and integrated disk braking allows gradual ramping of turbine output up or down, minimizing flicker and
maximizing usable power.
We expect two Northwind 100 wind turbines to produce over 50% of the electricity consumed in the
village today. The wind turbines should supply over 540,000 kWh of electrical energy annually, including
over 180,000 kWh for use to heat water.
Anticipated barriers
Logistical and weather barriers are common in the area. AVEC has routinely overcome these barriers in
similar projects in similar areas. Permitting can sometimes affect projects adversely. On Shaktoolik,
AVEC has already determined an alternate site for the wind turbines in response to concerns expressed
by Fish and Wildlife.
Basic integration concept
The wind turbines will interconnect with the existing diesel power plant. Secondary load control will
dispatch boilers as required to use excess wind energy while allowing the diesel generators to continue
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 13 9/3/2008
running at efficient levels.
Delivery methods
The wind‐generated electrical energy will be delivered using the existing electrical distribution grid.
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.
A lease agreement exists between the Shaktoolik Native Corporation and AVEC (See Tab 6‐Supplemental
Materials). The agreement leases land to AVEC for the wind turbines through 2057.
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
It is likely that the following permits will be needed to construct the wind turbines:
Section 404 Permit (Wetlands Permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Coastal Zone Consistency Determination from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
No permitting issues are expected.
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
Threatened or Endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be consulted to
ensure that the construction of the wind turbines would have no affect on threatened or
endangered species. Construction would be timed to avoid impacts to migratory birds in
compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Habitat issues. During permitting, the project team would work with agencies to ensure that
the project would not impact any State refuges, sanctuaries, or critical habitat areas, federal
refuges or wilderness areas, or national parks.
Wetlands and other protected areas. It is likely that the wind turbines could be placed in
wetland locations. An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ wetlands permit would be needed.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 13 9/3/2008
Archaeological and historical resources. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation
Act with the State Historic Preservation Officer would be conducted prior to construction of the
wind turbines.
Land development constraints. AVEC has site control for the wind turbines.
Aviation considerations. The turbines would be located away from the active airport and
outside any important operational aircraft area.
Visual, aesthetics impacts. It is likely that residents would be willing to forego some aesthetic
impacts in the interest of lowering the cost of energy. AVEC would conduct community
meetings to discuss community impacts and how they could be minimized.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed 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
This application is for the last phase of the project. Preliminary work has already been done. We
anticipate that the project will cost $2,727,9601 to complete from this point. We are requesting
$2,465,664 from AEA. AVEC will provide $10,500 as an in‐kind contribution and $251,796 as a cash
match toward the project.
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.
Total anticipated project cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
AVEC’s existing NW100 wind turbines require two maintenance visits a year. Those visits currently cost
AVEC $3,500 per turbine per year. The new Northwind 100 model requires only one maintenance visit
each year. So the two turbines at Shaktoolik will require a combined annual maintenance cost of $3,500.
This cost will be funded by ongoing energy sales in the village.
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
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 13 9/3/2008
The project breaks even at 16 years.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
Please see the attachment.
4.4.5 Business Plan
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.
The project will be incorporated into AVEC’s power plant operation. Maintenance will be managed as it
is at the diesel plant.
4.4.6 Analysis and Recommendations
Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your
recommendation for additional project development work.
The wind turbines and control systems provided as part of this project will be fully incorporated into
AVEC’s power plant operations. From that perspective, the wind turbines will be treated as generating
equipment, just like the generator sets. Maintenance schedules will be routinely developed and
managed. The result will be improved reliability from the existence of additional generating sources and
reduced fuel consumption from the use of wind. We do not anticipate any additional project
development work at this site following this 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 avoided cost of ownership)
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
We expect two Northwind 100 wind turbines will displace 27,000 gallons of diesel fuel each year. So far
in 2008, AVEC has spent an average of $4.4255 per gallon for the fuel it has used to generate electricity.
If that continues to be the rate through the first year of operation of the wind turbines, then we will
save $104,463 during that first year. Assuming a 4% rate of inflation for the next 20 years, we expect the
project to save over $3.1 million over that period of time. At this rate, the project breaks even at just
over 16 years.
The non‐economic benefits to the Alaskan population at large will be from the reduced carbon footprint
of the power plant. By reducing the amount of fuel burned on the island by over 50%, we will prevent
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 13 9/3/2008
over 350 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year.
SECTION 6 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much your total project costs. Include any investments to date and funding sources,
how much is requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an
applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by tasks using the form - GrantBudget.xls
The total project cost for the project is $2,759,461 of which $2,494,015 is requested in grant funds. The
remaining $265,446 will be matched by AVEC. A detail of the costs is:
Milestone or Task State Funds
Local Match
Funds (Cash)
Local Match
Funds (In‐Kind) TOTALS
1. Design and Permitting $199,500 $10,500 $210,000
2. Construction $2,237,814 $248,646 $2,486,460
3. Commissioning $28,350 $3,150 $31,500
TOTALS $2,465,664 $254,946 $10,500 $2,727,960
Tab 2
Resumes
Tab 3
Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund
Application Cost Worksheet
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. Level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
1. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. 6.38 m/s
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 3
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 207kW / 175kW / 250kW
iii. Generator/boilers/other type diesel engine generators
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other Dates of original startup: ’94 / ’84 / ’88
Dates of last rebuild: ’06 / ’91 / ’03
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.80 kWh/gallon
b) Annual O&M cost
i. Annual O&M cost for labor
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $170,000 total labor and non-labor
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 809,695 kWh
ii. Fuel usage (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank
Diesel [gal] 58,673 gallon
Other
iii. Peak Load 216 kW
iv. Average Load 92 kW
v. Minimum Load 46 kW (estimated)
vi. Efficiency
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2
3. Proposed System Design
a) Installed capacity 200 kW (wind turbine)
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh] 540,289 kWh
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $2,517,960
b) Development cost $210,000
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $3,500
d) Annual fuel cost (savings) ($160,000)
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 22,000 gallons
ii. Heat 5,000 gallons
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel $4.4255 / gallon (2008 actual average)
c) Other economic benefits
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale N/A
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 1.25
Payback 16 years
Tab 4
Grant Budget Form
Alaska Energy Authority ‐ Renewable Energy FundShaktoolik Wind Construction ProjectBUDGET INFORMATIONBUDGET SUMMARY:Milestone or Task Federal Funds State FundsLocal Match Funds (Cash)Local Match Funds (In‐Kind)Other FundsTOTALS1. Design and Permitting $199,500 $10,500 $210,0002. Construction $2,237,814 $248,646 $2,486,4603. Commissioning $28,350 $3,150 $31,500TOTALS $2,465,664 $251,796 $10,500 $0 $2,727,960Milestone # or Task #BUDGET CATAGORIES:1 2 3 TOTALSDirect Labor and Benefits $10,500$10,500Travel, Meals, or Per Diem$0Equipment$0Supplies$0Contractual Services $199,500 $2,486,460 $31,500 $2,717,460Construction Services$0Other Direct Costs$0TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES $210,000 $2,486,460 $31,500 $2,727,960RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
11/10/2008Install 2 NW100sShaktoolik, AKAVEC SummaryPage 1 of 1Description Costs Materials 283,400$ Labor131,445$ Equipment70,600$ Mob/Demob (freight)255,697$ Construction Survey15,525$ Indirects147,660$ Contingency 5% on above65,481$ Construction Management45,000$ Subtotals1,014,808$ Description Costs Nacelle, Controller, Smartview456,000$ Wind Tower150,000$ FAA Lights4,000$ Cold Weather Package40,000$ Freight on turbines/towers etc.115,000$ Contingency 5% on above38,250$ Integration/control equipment500,000$ Commissioning30,000$ Subtotal1,333,250$ Description Costs Design ($25K) and Permitting ($25K) 50,000$ Geotechnical studies150,000$ AVEC project mgmt, travel, etc.50,000$ AVEC admin costs @ 5% of all project costs129,903$ Subtotal379,903$ Cost Per TurbineTOTALS2,727,961$ 909,320$ Milestone 1: Design and Permitting210,000$ Milestone 2: Construction 2,486,461$ Milestone 3: Commissioning 31,500$ 2,727,961$ Field InstallationWind Equipment - turbines/towers, etc.AVEC Costs\\Athena\avec\KEY\KEYPublic\Grants\GrantApplications\AEA_AlternativeEnergyProposal\November Applications\Shaktoolik\Tab 4-Bdgt Form\Shaktoolik budget backup FINAL / AVECSummary
Tab 5
Delegation of Authority
Tab 6
Supplemental Materials
Shaktoolik Native Corporation Letter of
Support
City of Shaktoolik Letter of Support
Lease Agreement between Shaktoolik
Corporation and AVEC
Shaktoolik HOMER Analysis
USFWS Letter of No Affect (of Met Tower) on
Threatened or Endangered Species
Assumptions
Wind Resource
Loads
Min Load 46 kW (assumed half of avg)
Avg Load 92 kW
Max Load 216 kW
Generators
Minimum load ratio 10%
Wind Turbines
Northwind 100, 21m rotor, 30m tower
Summary
1 2 3 4
NW100 NW100 NW100 NW100
Renewable Fraction 32.0%54.6%68.2%76.4%
Penetration (Wind Capacity /Min Load)217.4%434.8%652.2%869.6%
Penetration (Wind Capacity /Avg Load)108.7%217.4%326.1%434.8%
801,539 801,539 801,539 801,539 801,539
801,539 843,074 990,303 1,188,738 1,414,286
0 270,144 540,289 810,434 1,080,577
0 41,535 188,765 387,199 612,749
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
220,090 166,675 134,908 114,448 101,243
53,415 85,182 105,642 118,847
4,292 19,504 40,008 63,313
57,707 52,343 48,550 45,540
58,142 44,031 35,639 30,234 26,746
14,111 22,503 27,908 31,396
1,134 5,153 10,569 16,726
15,245 27,655 38,477 48,122
9%(1,270)(2,025)(2,512)(2,826)
13,975 25,630 35,965 45,296
13,975 12,815 11,988 11,324
4.4255$61,844$113,426$159,163$200,458$2008 Actual
5.0000$69,873$128,150$179,825$226,480$
5.5000$76,860$140,965$197,808$249,129$
5,403$10,806$16,209$21,612$Green Tags @ $0.02/kWh Wind
Annual Generator Fuel Savings
Annual Heating Fuel Savings
Fuel @ US$5.5/gal
Total Fuel Consumed
Annual Heating Fuel Savings
Net fuel savings per turbine
Unmet Load
Capacity Shortage
Total Consumption
Total Production
Doug Vaught summary of Shaktoolik data.
Wind data anemometer @ 30m height
Scenarios for 0 (baseline), 1, 2, 3 and 4 units
Annual Generator Fuel Savings
Shaktoolik
Baseline
Gross fuel savings per turbineliter/yrWind Production
kWh/yrHOMER model simulation summary
Excess Energy
Daily load profiles estimated from 2007 actual monthly average & peak measurements.
1 x 175; 1 x 207; 1 x 250
Net$/yrFuel @ US$4.4255/gal
Fuel @ US$5/gal
Annual Gross Fuel Savings
Less Turbine Downtime
Annual Net Fuel Savingsgallons/yrTotal Fuel Consumed
1
Generator Power Curve Calibration
Actual / Target
58,673 gallons/year ->222,101 liter/year
809,695 kWh/year
13.80 kWh/gallon ->3.646 kWh/liter
Iterations
kWh/yr liter/yr kWh/liter factors
% of target
efficiency
801,539 191,642 4.182 .02… .20 114.73%14.7262%
801,539 271,796 2.949 .02… .30 80.89%19.1071%
801,539 199,476 4.018 .025… .20 110.22%10.2206%
801,539 239,553 3.346 .025… .25 91.78%8.2192%
801,539 223,552 3.585 .025… .23 98.35%1.6499%
801,539 218,821 3.663 .022… .23 100.48%0.4764%
801,539 220,075 3.642 .0228… .23 99.90%0.0961%
801,539 ---
801,539 ---
801,539 ---
801,539 ---
801,539 ---
801,539 ---
801,539 ---
0.0961%
conversions for heating applications:
3412 Btu/kWh
129500 Btu/gallon net #2 diesel 138000 HHV
3.7854 liter/gallon
125000 Btu/gallon net #1 diesel 133000 HHV
0.103326278 liter/kWh #1 diesel
Green Tags 2.5 - 7 cents / kWh
use 2 for net wind kWh
Inflation Rate:4.00%
Annual
Savings
Cumulative
Savings
First-year 113,426$113,426$
2 117,963$231,389$
3 122,681$354,070$
4 127,589$481,659$
5 132,692$614,351$
6 138,000$752,351$
7 143,520$895,870$
8 149,261$1,045,131$
9 155,231$1,200,362$
10 161,440$1,361,802$
11 167,898$1,529,700$
12 174,614$1,704,314$
13 181,598$1,885,912$
14 188,862$2,074,775$
15 196,417$2,271,191$
16 204,273$2,475,465$
17 212,444$2,687,909$
18 220,942$2,908,852$
19 229,780$3,138,631$
20 238,971$3,377,602$
21 248,530$3,626,132$
22 258,471$3,884,603$
1
Shaktoolik
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
1 2 3 4
Number of Wind Turbines
Annual Fuel Cost Savings
1
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1 2 3 4GallonsofFuel
Number of Wind Turbines
Annual Fuel Savings Per Turbine
1
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office
605 West 4th Avenue, Room G-61
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2249
in reply refer to
AFWFO
October 4, 2007
Chet Frost
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Re:MET Tower Installations in Six Villages (consultation # 2007-I-316)
Dear Mr. Frost,
On August 7, 2007, we received your letter describing the initiation of a feasibility study for
wind power generation in 8 rural villages in Alaska. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
(AVEC) proposes to install one meteorological instrument (MET)tower at each of the following
rural villages 1) Teller, 2) Shaktoolik, 3) Emmonak, 4) Pilot Station, 5) Marshall, 6) Mountain
Village, and 7) Old Harbor; and two MET towers at St. Mary’s. The proposed MET tower
installations are funded by the Denali Commission through the Alaska Energy Authority. The
scope of this consultation was revised on September 11, 2007 when (as per our telephone
conversation) it was agreed that consultation separately and directly with the Fairbanks Fish and
Wildlife Field Office is appropriate for the proposed wind power development in Teller. This
decision was based on two factors: 1) the location for the MET tower installation for the village
of Teller had not yet been established, and 2) section 7 consultation for wind power development
in Teller may be more complicated than in the other villages proposed. Further, in our
conversation it was clarified that there is no federal nexus for the proposed MET tower
installation in Old Harbor. Thus, this consultation will address proposed MET tower installations
in the villages of Shaktoolik, Emmonak, Pilot Station, Marshall and Mountain Village.
MET towers are 30 to 40 meter towers, supported by 16 or 24 guy wires (respectively). The
MET towers support anomometers that measure weather parameters enabling a feasibility study
for developing an area for wind power generation. Anomometer data will be gathered at a
proposed wind generation site for 12-18 months, after which time, the MET towers will be taken
down.
Spectacled eiders (Somateria fischeri), listed as threatened in 1993, may breed in the vicinity of
Emmonak, and occur in high densities during their molting period in the waters of eastern
Norton Sound, adjacent to Shaktoolik. While spectacled eiders typically follow the coastline
2007-I-316
Mr.Chet Frost
-2 -
during migration, they are known to collide with on-land towers and wires. Spectacled eiders fly
approximately 10 meters above the surface of water and land at a speed of about 48 kph, and
they tend to migrate at night. Indeed, they appear to be very susceptible to hitting structures and
wires, especially during periods of low visibility such as fog events.
On September 11, 2007, you requested concurrence with the determination that the installation
and operation of MET towers will have no effect on species protected under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq: 87 stat 884, as amended; ESA) at St. Mary’s, Pilot
Station, Mountain Village and Marshall, and is not likely to adversely affect species protected
under the ESA at Shaktoolik and Emmonak.
Pilot Station, St. Mary’s, Mountain Village, Marshall
Our records indicate that there are no federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or
proposed critical habitat within the action area of the proposed project. Therefore, the Service
concurs with your determination that installation of MET towers in these four villages will have
no effect on species protected under the ESA.
Shaktoolik,
The MET tower site is on an abandoned airstrip on the north edge of the community. This site is
in relatively close proximity to the shoreline of Norton Sound, but located as far away from the
coastline as practical.
Shaktookik is located along the shoreline of eastern Norton Sound, and is in the vicinity of
Critical Habitat designated for the spectacled eider. Spectacled eiders congregate in the waters of
eastern Norton Sound between mid July and mid October each year, during which time they
become flightless while they molt. But while this village is in close proximity to such valuable
resources, spectacled eiders are not known to migrate through or around Shaktoolik (Sarah Conn,
USFWS, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska, personal communication).
Emmonak
The proposed MET tower will be located within the existing footprint of the village.
Emmonak is generally within historic spectacled eider breeding habitat, but aerial survey data
suggests they are found in low concentrations there (sporadic concentrations of perhaps one
dozen pairs; Bob Platte, USFWS, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, personal
communication).
Although some risk of collision with the tower and guy wires does exist for eiders in the vicinity
of Emmonak and Shaktoolilk, the Service believes this risk to threatened eiders is so low it can
be considered discountable. We used the following information to reach this conclusion: 1)
spectacled eiders occur in low numbers, if at all in the Emmonak area, and if they are present
there it is for approximately four months; 2) spectacled eiders are not known to fly through or by
Shaktoolik on their way to the molting grounds in eastern Norton Sound; and 3) the duration of
time that the MET towers will be up is short (12-18 months). Therefore, the Service concurs with
your determination that the installation of meteorological towers in the villages of Emmonak and
Mr. Chet Frost
-3 -
Shaktoolik is not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species or their critical
habitat. If, during the wind assessment study, spectacled eiders are observed in the vicinity of the
towers, or if a collision is documented, the Service should be notified immediately and
consultation should be reinitiated. Preparation of a biological assessment or further consultation
under section 7 of the ESA regarding this project is not necessary at this time. This consultation
only considers the short-term installation of MET towers, not the installation of turbines.
The above consultation relates only to federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or
proposed critical habitat under our jurisdiction. It does not address species under the jurisdiction
of National Marine Fisheries Service, or other legislation or responsibilities under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
As you know, another of the Service’s Trust Resources, migratory birds, can suffer significant
mortality from collisions with towers and associated infrastructure. The Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation,and
importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized
by the Department of the Interior.
While the MBTA has no provision for allowing unauthorized take, it must be recognized that
some birds may be killed at structures such as wind turbines even if all reasonable measures to
avoid it are implemented. While it is not possible under the MBTA to absolve individuals or
companies from liability if they follow recommended guidelines, the Division of Law
Enforcement and Department of Justice have used enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in
the past regarding individuals or companies who have made good faith efforts to avoid the take
of migratory birds.
We are taking this opportunity to inform you of areas with the potential for adverse affects to
migratory birds if and when wind turbines are ultimately installed. Based on data retrieved from
Environmental Sensitivity Index for Western Alaska (2003), a great diversity of shorebirds and
ducks migrate, stage and nest in the wetlands in the vicinity of Emmonak. Indeed, 2-3 million
shorebirds including American golden plovers (Pluvialis dominica),bar-tailed (Limosa
lapponica)and Hudsonian (Limosa haemastica)godwits,whimbrels (Numenius phaeopus)and
surfbirds (Aphriza virgata), all listed as species of conservation concern (USFWS 2002) move
through the Emmonak area. As such, we strongly encourage you to be proactive in your pre-
construction investigations related to potential effects of wind power development on migratory
birds.Such investigations may include site-specific information on migratory bird numbers and
migratory routes or behavior (i.e., any significant use of local stop-over sites), and site-specific
information on carcass removal rates so that any post-construction strike data can be more
accurately assessed.The use of bird-strike diverters on guy wires, or a way of visually breaking
into sections the length of the guy wires to increase their visibility is also strongly recommended.
The feasibility study phase for wind power development is an appropriate time to further assess
bird strike potential. The bird data you collect during the one-year feasibility study for wind
Mr.Chet Frost
-4 -
using anemometers can provide new information that could be very useful during the wind
power generator installation phase. We recommend that you review the Service Interim
Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines
(http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/wind.pdf). We recommend that you follow these
guidelines as practicable. We would be happy to work with you further with your plans to reduce
risk to migratory birds.
Conclusion
This concludes the section 7 consultation on MET Tower Installations in Six Villages. Thank
you for your cooperation in meeting our joint responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA. If you
have any questions, please contact me at (907) 271-1467. In future correspondences regarding
this consultation please refer to consultation number 2007-I-316.
Sincerely,
Ellen W. Lance
Endangered Species Biologist
Literature Cited
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. 2003. Sensitivity of coastal
environments and wildlife to spilled oil; western Alaska Atlas. Western Alaska subarea
contingency plan.http://www.akrrt.org/WAplan/watoc.shtml, accessed Sept. 13, 2007.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern, 2002. USFWS,
Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/bcc2002.pdf, accessed September 13, 2007.
T:\s7\2007 sec 7\2007-I-316_NLTAA.doc