HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmmonak Wind App
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Application for Renewable Energy Fund Grant
Alaska Energy Authority
Emmonak, Alaska
Wind Design & Construction Project
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 14 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 Key Accounts
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
(907)565-5531
Fax
(907)562-4086
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 14 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 and to tie the electrical distribution systems from two villages together.
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.
The project involves the final design, permitting, and construction of an electrical distribution
tie line between the villages of Emmonak and Alakanuk and the final design, permitting,
construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of eight wind turbines to supplement a new
power generation system for the communities of Emmonak and Alakanuk. 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, installation of the electrical
distribution lines, 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. Site control is under final review and is expected within a week of
submission of this application. Permitting was completed for the met tower currently at the site
of the wind turbines; we expect no unusual permitting requirements for the site.
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 requires $10,773,179 to complete. AVEC will provide an in‐kind contribution of
$10,500 and a cash contribution of $1,052,318.
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 offset fuel costs for power generation in
Emmonak and Alakanuk. A secondary financial benefit will be from the retirement of the
existing power plant at Alakanuk.
Simulations of wind resource versus load demand result in an estimated gross fuel savings of
almost 117,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year between the Emmonak and Alakanuk plants.
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 in rural Alaska.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 14 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 97,000 gallons of
diesel fuel per year at Emmonak and Alakanuk. At AVEC’s 2008 actual average price of fuel at
both communities of $4.4259/gallon, savings will approach $430,000 per year. If the price of
fuel rises to $5.50/gallon, the savings will exceed $530,000 per year. If downtime can be cut in
half, reduced to 9% from the 18% we are carrying for this application, then annual savings will
exceed $473,000 at current diesel prices and $587,000 at $5.50/gallon.
By shutting down the power plant at Alakanuk, AVEC will save approximately $170,000 per year
in labor and generator consumables and replacement parts.
In addition to the financial benefits 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.)
$10,733,179
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $9,670,361
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $1,062,818
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $10,733,179
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) ($640,000) / 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.)
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.
AVEC’s 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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 14 9/3/2008
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.
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.
3.1 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.
AVEC will provide a project team from within its operating staff. To further support the AVEC
team in project delivery, design consultants and construction managers are selected.
Brent Petrie, Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts will take the lead role as
project manager. He has worked for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative since 1998, where he
manages the development of alternatives to diesel generation for AVEC such as using hydro,
wind or heat recovery. He also manages relationships with AVEC’s largest customers and is the
project manager for AVEC’s many construction projects as an energy partner of the federally
funded Denali Commission.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 14 9/3/2008
Mr. Petrie has been employed in the energy and resource field for more than thirty years,
having worked for the federal and state governments as consultant, planner and project
manager. He has been a utility manager or management consultant since 1993. As General
Manager of Iliamna‐ Newhalen‐Nondalton Electric Cooperative from 1994 to 1998, he reported
to a seven‐member, elected board of directors, and served as project manager on its
hydroelectric project development. He is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the
Utility Wind Interest Group representing rural electric cooperatives and serves on the Power
Supply Task force of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Mr. Petrie has a
Master’s Degree in Water Resource Management and a Bachelor's degree in Geography.
Brent Petrie is supported by additional Key Management positions. A more complete biography
for these positions is attached.
President and CEO Meera Kohler with more than 25 years of experience in the Alaska electric
utility industry. She was appointed Manager of Administration and Finance at Cordova Electric
Cooperative in 1983, General Manager of Naknek Electric Association in 1990, and General
Manager of Municipal Light and Power in Anchorage, in late 1997. And since 2000 has been
president and CEO of Alaska Village Electric Cooperative.
Vice President/Manager, Engineering Mark Teitzel has been employed with AVEC since 1980,
when he began as the Manager of Engineering. Mr. Teitzel has experience with planning short
and long range electrical distribution systems serving approximately 7500 meters, and has also
performed power requirement studies, and designed system extensions and improvements.
Mark Teitzel coordinates the development of departmental operating policies and procedures,
and is also responsible in developing future AVEC projects. He acts as liaison with the Alaska
Division of Energy, USDA Rural Utilities Service and other governmental authorities.
Manager of Operations, Mark Bryan supervises the cooperative's line operations, generation
operations and all field construction programs. He has worked at Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative since 1980, was appointed Manager of Construction in May 1998 and was
promoted to Manager of Operations in June 2003. In a previously held position as a field plant
instructor, he supervised the installation of diesel generators and hydronic systems. He has also
assisted in the calibration of new generator installations, and designed and installed special
research and development projects for the construction department.
Manager of Administrative Services Debbie Bullock has been employed with AVEC since 1993
and is responsible for all administrative and financial records of the cooperative. She is
responsible for preparing USDA‐RUS reports, Regulatory Commission of Alaska rate filings,
financial forecasts, budgets and Power Cost Equalization reports as well as overseeing the day‐
to‐day office operations.
Manager of Member Services Georgia Shaw is responsible for consumer relations, education,
and monthly electric billings. She also handles the collection and disconnection proceedings and
maintains the utility's electric tariff.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 14 9/3/2008
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
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 Emmonak.
To ensure that the work is completed, a contractor will be selected by March 1, 2010, and site
work equipment will be transported to Emmonak 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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 14 9/3/2008
service providers from prequalified organizations. STG will provide the wind turbine
foundations 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 turbines and the electrical
balance of plant.
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.
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 significant 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 together for the past 5 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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 14 9/3/2008
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.
Emmonak is a high class 3 wind regime for wind power generation. During 2007, a combined
total of 4,734,835 kWh of energy was generated at the Emmonak and Alakanuk power plants
using 341,522 gallons of diesel fuel. An eight‐unit array of Northwind 100 wind turbines
generating almost 1,980,000 kWh per year could displace over 40% of the energy normally
generated by diesel, and provide excess energy to heat water for use at the school or water
plant.
The wind regime at Emmonak is good, but its fuel supply is limited and costly. Solar power from
photovoltaic solar arrays is a potential alternative, but suffers from higher capital cost and
lower annual resource availability than wind at this site.
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 Emmonak consists of four separate diesel‐powered engine
generator sets, of 505 kW, 557 kW, 337 kW, and 908 kW capacities. These gensets were
originally installed and started up in 2005, 2005, 1977, and 1995, respectively. The 337 kW Cat
genset was completely overhauled in 1990. The overall plant generated 14.22 kWh for each
gallon of fuel consumed in 2007.
The existing power plant at Alakanuk consists of three separate diesel‐powered engine
generator sets, of 350 kW, 499 kW, and 350 kW capacities. These gensets were originally
installed and started up in 2008, 1999, and 1993, respectively. The two most recently installed
units have not yet been overhauled; the other was last overhauled in 1999. The overall plant
generated 13.33 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 wind turbines 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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 14 9/3/2008
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Emmonak is located at the mouth of the Yukon River, 10 miles from the Bering Sea on the north
bank of Kwiguk Pass. Alakanuk is located at the east entrance of Alakanuk Pass, the major
southern channel of the Yukon River, 15 miles from the Bering Sea and approximately 8 miles
from Emmonak. Both villages are 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.
Both villages are classified as isolated villages. Emergency medical service is provided 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.
Both villages are 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 such as deep snow
or in the extreme case, polar bears.
We expect the addition of wind turbines to the electric generation system to reduce the
amount of diesel fuel used 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 eight 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,
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 14 9/3/2008
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 eight Northwind 100 wind turbines to produce over 40% of the electricity consumed
in both villages today. The wind turbines should supply almost 2,000,000 kWh of electrical
energy annually, including over 225,000 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.
The meteorological tower currently installed at the proposed wind turbine site was permitted
with no undue effort.
Basic integration concept
The two villages will be connected with an electrical inter‐tie. 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 running
at efficient levels.
Delivery methods
The wind‐generated electrical energy will be delivered using the extended electrical distribution
grid included as part of this project.
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.
Site control is currently under final review with the City of Emmonak, and we expect to have
site control by November 14, 2008.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 14 9/3/2008
It is likely that the following permits will be needed to construct the wind turbines and intertie:
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
Fish Habitat Permit from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
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 and intertie 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 and intertie could be
placed in wetland locations. An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ wetlands permit would be
needed.
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 and intertie.
Land development constraints. AVEC is currently working with the City of Emmonak to gain
site control.
Aviation considerations. The turbines and intertie 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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 14 9/3/2008
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 intertie between Emmonak and Alakanuk, upgrading the switchgear
and controls for the diesel power plant at Emmonak, and for eight Northwind 100 wind
turbines. We anticipate that the project will cost $10,733,179 to complete. We are requesting
$9,670,361 from AEA. AVEC will provide $1,052,318 as a cash contribution and $10,500 as an
in‐kind contribution 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 at other sites 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 eight turbines at Emmonak will require a
combined annual maintenance cost of $14,000. This cost will be funded by ongoing energy
sales in the villages.
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
The project breaks even at 16.8 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 is managed.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 14 9/3/2008
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 eight Northwind 100 wind turbines will displace 96,898 gallons of diesel fuel each year.
In 2008, AVEC spent an average of $4.4259 per gallon for the fuel it has used to generate electricity
at both villages. If that continues to be rate through the first year of operation of the wind turbines,
then we will save $428,860 during that first year. Assuming a 4% rate of inflation for the next 20
years, we expect the project to save almost $13 million over that period of time. As discussed
previously, if fuel prices increase above the rate of inflation or if AVEC can reduce the downtime of
the wind turbines, then these projected savings will increase.
In addition to saving the direct cost of fuel, we also expect to be able to sell the green tags from the
project. At a conservative estimate of $0.02/kWh for those green tags today, we expect to earn
almost $40,000 per year, or an additional $800,000 over the 20‐year life of the project.
The non‐economic benefits to the Alaskan population at large will be primarily from the reduced
carbon footprint of the power plant. Reducing the amount of fuel burned at Emmonak and
Alakanuk by a third will prevent over 1,200 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere
each year.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 14 9/3/2008
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
This application is for the inter‐tie between Emmonak and Alakanuk, upgrading the switchgear and
controls for the diesel power plant at Emmonak, and for eight Northwind 100 wind turbines. We
anticipate that the project will cost $10,733,179 to complete. We are requesting $9,670,361 from
AEA. AVEC will provide $1,052,318 as a cash contribution and $10,500 as an in‐kind contribution
toward the project.
Details of the budget are:
Milestone or Task State Funds
Local Match
Funds (Cash)
Local Match
Funds (In‐
Kind) TOTALS
1. Design and Permitting $210,000 $10,500 $220,500
2. Construction $6,796,511 $755,168 $7,551,679
3. Commissioning $28,350 $3,150 $31,500
4. Design and Construct Inter‐Tie $2,646,000 $294,000 $2,940,000
TOTALS $9,680,861 $1,052,318 $10,500 $10,743,679
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. 6.36 m/s, from similar site at Nunam Iqua
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 4
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 337kW / 505kW / 557kW / 908kW
iii. Generator/boilers/other type diesel engine generators
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other Dates of original startup: ’77 / ’05 / ’05 / ‘95
Dates of last rebuild: ’90 / ’05 / ’05 / ‘95
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.86 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) per plant=$340,000
combined
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 4,734,835 kWh (2007 combined Emmonak & Alakanuk)
ii. Fuel usage (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank
Diesel [gal] 341,522 gallon (2007 combined Emmonak & Alakanuk)
Other
iii. Peak Load 932 kW (2007 combined Emmonak & Alakanuk)
iv. Average Load 489 kW (2007 combined Emmonak & Alakanuk)
v. Minimum Load 245 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 800 kW (wind turbine)
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh] 1,979,406 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 $210,000
b) Development cost $10,523,179
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $14,000
d) Annual fuel cost (savings) ($470,000)
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 110,000 gallons
ii. Heat 6,000 gallons
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel $4.4259 / gallon (2008 actual average)
c) Other economic benefits Retirement of Alakanuk power plant: $170,000 / year
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 1.19
Payback 16.8 years
Tab 4
Grant Budget Form
Alaska Energy Authority ‐ Renewable Energy FundEmmonak Wind Construction ProjectBUDGET INFORMATIONBUDGET SUMMARY:Milestone or TaskFederal Funds State FundsLocal Match Funds (Cash)Local Match Funds (In‐Kind)Other FundsTOTALS1. Design and Permitting$199,500.00$10,500.00$210,000.002. Construction$6,796,511.10 $755,167.90$7,551,679.003. Commissioning$28,350.00 $3,150.00$31,500.004. Design and Construct Inter‐Tie$2,646,000.00 $294,000.00$2,940,000.00TOTALS$9,670,361.10 $1,052,317.90 $10,500.00$0.00 $10,733,179.00Milestone # or Task #BUDGET CATAGORIES:1234TOTALSDirect Labor and Benefits$10,500.00$10,500.00Travel, Meals, or Per Diem$0.00Equipment$0.00Supplies$0.00Contractual Services$199,500.00 $7,551,679.00 $31,500.00 $2,940,000.00$10,722,679.00Construction Services$0.00Other Direct Costs$0.00TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES$210,000.00 $7,551,679.00 $31,500.00 $2,940,000.00$10,733,179.00RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
11/9/2008Install 8 NW100sEmmonak, AKAVEC SummaryPage 1 of 1Description Costs Materials 1,564,550$ Labor489,613$ Equipment242,550$ Mob/Demob (freight)255,697$ Construction Survey15,525$ Indirects147,660$ Contingency 5% on above65,481$ Construction Management45,000$ Subtotals2,826,076$ Description Costs Nacelle, Controller, Smartview1,824,000$ Wind Tower600,000$ FAA Lights16,000$ Cold Weather Package160,000$ Freight on turbines/towers etc.320,000$ Contingency 5% on above146,000$ Integration/control equipment1,250,000$ Commissioning30,000$ Subtotal4,346,000$ 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 costs371,104$ Subtotal621,104$ Cost Per TurbineTOTALS7,793,180$ 974,147$ Milestone 1: Design and Permitting210,000$ Milestone 2: Construction7,551,679$ Milestone 3: Commissioning31,500$ Milestone 4: Two Community Inter-Tie2,940,000$ 10,733,179$ Note:Inter- Tie : $400,000 per mile for 7 miles plus 5% for designField InstallationWind Equipment - turbines/towers, etc.AVEC Costs\\Athena\avec\KEY\KEYPublic\Grants\GrantApplications\AEA_AlternativeEnergyProposal\November Applications\Emmonak\Tab 4-Bdgt Form\Emmo budget details FINAL / AVECSummary
Tab 5
Delegation of Authority
Tab 6
Supplemental Materials
Emmonak Tribal Council Letter of Support
Emmonak Corporation Letter of Support
City of Emmonak Resolution for Lease
Addendum
USFWS Concurrence of No Affect of Met
Tower on Threatened or Endangered
Species
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