HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt. Mary's Wind App
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Application for Renewable Energy Fund Grant
Alaska Energy Authority
St. Mary’s, Alaska
Wind Feasibility Analysis &
Conceptual Design 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 15 10/8/2008
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
Type of Entity:
Utility
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, AK 99503
Physical Address
Same
Telephone
907‐565‐5358
Fax
907‐562‐4086
Email
BPetrie@avec.org
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Brent Petrie
Title
Manager, Community Development Key Accounts
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
907‐565‐5358
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 15 10/8/2008
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.
The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is proposing to continue the wind resource assessment
and evaluation of prospective wind power sites in the vicinity of Saint Mary’s, including evaluation of
mitigation measures to counter apparent rime icing conditions and possible installation of a third met
tower, with the goal to supplement AVEC’s diesel powered generation in Saint Mary’s.
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.
A meteorological (met) tower installed near Pitka’s Point (Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are connected
by a road and an electrical intertie) in October 2007 has revealed an outstanding Class 6 wind resource
with highly directional winds. A second met tower was installed in August 2008 at lower elevation and
closer to Saint Mary’s. This second site was chosen to evaluate possible trade‐offs of wind resource and
rime icing risk. The Pitka’s Point met tower data has indicated that rime icing conditions appear to
possibly be a significant issue at that location. While rime icing is presumed to also occur at the lower
elevation Saint Mary’s met tower site, the desire is to contrast and compare the two sites with respect
to wind power and predicted power loss due to rime icing. A third met tower is presently stored in Saint
Mary’s and available for installation at a third site should early winter data collection at the Saint Mary’s
(the second site) indicate significant rime icing.
AVEC proposes to continue the wind resource assessment for an additional one to two years to include
evaluation and comparison of the two existing met towers and possible installation of the third met
tower at a site further from back from the Yukon River. The primary focus of continuation of the wind
study will be to further evaluate the icing problem at the met tower sites and to estimate as accurately
as possible turbine downtime during icing conditions. The evaluation of rime icing risk in Saint Mary’s
will be coordinated with efforts underway by the Alaska Energy Authority to predict at a state‐wide level
rime icing risk for potential wind power sites.
Also, given the relatively large population of Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point and possible intertie options
to the villages of Mountain Village and Pilot Station, continuation of the wind resource study will include
wind farm sizing and layout options to power these two villages as well.
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 total project cost for the project is $110,000 of which $104,500 is requested in grant funds. The
remaining $5,500 will be matched in cash by AVEC. A detail of the costs is:
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 15 10/8/2008
Task Total
Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits $5,000
Erect, Monitor, and Dismantle Met Tower(s) $20,000
Complete Geotech Work $65,000
Complete Wind Resource Reports $10,000
Complete Conceptual Design $10,000
Total $110,000
The total project costs through construction depend on the outcome of the wind resource study and
geotechnical report; however, an estimate can be made:
Estimated Conceptual Design and Final Design and Permitting: $200,000.
Estimated Construction and Commissioning: $6,000,000.
Estimated Project Total (including this phase): $6,310,000.
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 would be reduced fuel costs to the people of St. Mary’s,
Pilot Station, and Mt. Village. Wind turbine selection, wind farm configuration, and the annual average
wind penetration level have not yet been determined, but a target goal of 40 percent diesel fuel usage is
contemplated and considered achievable given the area’s outstanding wind resource measured to date
and the amount of land available for wind farm construction. Based on 2007 data, 40 percent fuel usage
reduction would result in a displacement of 132,112 gallons of fuel for diesel power generation. At a fuel
price of $4.26 per gallon (2008 St. Mary’s cost), this would equate to an annual fuel cost savings of
approximately $563,449.
Other Benefits to the Alaskan Public:
The anticipated benefits of installation of the wind turbines would be reducing the negative impact of the
cost of energy by providing a renewable energy alternative. This project could help stabilize energy costs
and provide long‐term socio‐economic benefits to village households. Locally produced, affordable
energy will empower community residents and could help avert rural to urban migration. This project
would have many environmental benefits resulting from a reduction of hydrocarbon use. These benefits
include:
Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus
protecting vital water and subsistence food sources)
Improved air quality
Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use
Decreased coastal erosion due 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.)
$6,310,000
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $110,000
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $5,500
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 15 10/8/2008
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $104,500
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) To be determined
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.)
$563,499 annual avoided fuel
cost (40% avg wind; fuel
$4.26/gal)
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.
AVEC, the electric utility serving the community, will provide overall project management and oversight
for this project.
Brent Petrie, AVEC Project Manager: Brent Petrie will be the primary contact for AVEC. He will work
with an AVEC project manager, yet to be selected, to provide overall project management and oversight.
Please see resumes in Section 2 of this proposal for details regarding the staff.
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
Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits for prospective turbine site(s): September 1, 2009
Erect Third Met Tower (stored in Saint Mary’s): May 30, 2009
Monitor Met Tower Data: ongoing through September 2010
Dismantle Met Towers: September 2010
Select Engineering Contractor: August 3, 2009
Complete Geotech Field Work: September 1, 2009
Complete Geotech Report: November 2, 2009
Complete Wind Resource Reports: October 30, 2010
Complete Conceptual Design: January 15, 2011
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 15 10/8/2008
Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits: AVEC proposes to get as much completed in the first year
(2009) of this project as possible. AVEC would work with the current land owner to obtain permission
for placing a third met tower as part of an ongoing effort to identify sites that have strong wind
resources but as little rime icing as possible.
Erect Met Tower: Two met towers are presently operational in Saint Mary’s and a third met tower is
stored at the Saint Mary’s power plant for potential installation elsewhere in Saint Mary’s. These met
towers were purchased by AVEC in July 2007.
Complete Geotech Field Work: Based on data analysis from the existing met towers and possible wind
project configurations, geotechnical work will be initiated in summer 2009. AVEC would also
immediately seek approvals from permitting agencies.
Complete Wind Resource Reports: Data from the existing Saint Mary’s met towers (one installed in
October 2007 and the other in August 2008) will continue to be analyzed to verify the wind resource and
also to predict power production losses due to rime icing. Data from the third met tower will be
collected and compared to data from the existing sites in an effort to optimize the trade‐off of wind
resource to rime icing risk.
Complete Conceptual Design: It is presumed that data from the met towers will allow for conceptual
design to proceed. The final conceptual design will be completed as soon as possible following
completion of the wind resource study.
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 use a project management approach that has been used to successfully install met towers
throughout rural Alaska: A team of AVEC staff and external consultants.
AVEC staff and their role on this project includes:
Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer, will act as Project Executive and will
maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.
Brent Petrie, manager of the community development group, will be the project manager.
Together with his group, Brent will provide coordination of the installation of the met tower,
geotechnical work, and conceptual design. The group’s resources include a project coordinator,
contracts clerk, accountant, engineer, and a community liaison.
Debbie Bullock, manager of administrative services will provide support in accounting, payables,
financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines.
An AVEC project manager will lead this project. The project manager will be responsible for:
Obtaining site control/access and permits for the installation of the met tower and geotechnical
work
Selecting, coordinating, and managing the engineering consultant
Communicating with Saint Mary’s residents to ensure that the community is informed
Contractors for this project would include:
Wind Resource Consultant. AVEC will employ a wind resource consultant who will:
o Supervise the installation of the met tower
o Consult on the operation and maintenance of the tower
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 15 10/8/2008
o Draft the wind resource report
Engineering consultant. AVEC will employ an engineering consultant who will:
o Select, coordinate, and manage the geotechnical contractor
o Create the wind turbine facility conceptual design
Selection Process for Contractors: The engineering consultant selection will be based upon technical
competencies, past performance, written proposal quality, cost, and general consensus from the
technical steering committee. The selection of the consultant will occur in strict conformity with
corporate procurement policies, conformance with OMB circulars, and DCAA principles.
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. The project manager will work closely with the wind
resource and engineering consultants to ensure adherence to the project schedule and budget. Weekly
and monthly project coordination meetings will be held with the project team to track progress and
address issues as they arise. The project manager will provide quarterly reports to AVEC for finalization
and submission to the AEA.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Because the Cities of Saint Mary’s, Pitka’s Point, Mt. Village, and Pilot Station and the Nerklikmute and
Pitka’s Point Native Corporations have been involved in the planning of this project, and because this
project could provide relief for high power costs, the communities are very supportive of this project.
Site Control/Access. At present, AVEC has been offered site control for the two existing met tower sites
in Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. A third met tower site has not yet been definitively identified although
one possibility is near the airport in Mountain Village. This site would only be considered for a met
tower should a decision be made to consider an intertie option to Mountain Village.
Weather. Weather could delay geotechnical field work; however, an experienced consultant, familiar
with Alaskan weather conditions, would be selected. It unlikely that a delay in the total project schedule
would occur if the field work is delayed. The met tower would be installed to handle Saint Mary’s winter
weather conditions. The met towers have been and will be monitored to ensure they remain functional
and return good quality data.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 15 10/8/2008
available for the market to be served by your project.
Based on wind resource data collected from the Pitka’s Point met tower installed in October 2007 and
reviewed by V3 Energy, LLC, Saint Mary’s has outstanding (Class 6) potential for wind power
development. A second met tower, closer to Saint Mary’s has been logging data since August 2008.
Although the wind power class of this new site cannot yet be determined, based on the topography and
elevation relationship to the Pitka’s Point met tower, a minimum Class 5 (excellent) site is expected.
The mitigating issue in the wind resource measured to date is the presence of winter rime icing that will
result in some degree of power loss. Even with a relatively high amount of rime icing, the wind power
potential in Saint Mary’s, Mt. Village, and Pilot Station remains extraordinarily good and worthy of
continued study with wind turbine development in mind.
In 2007, a total of 7,182,539 kWh was generated by the St.Mary’s, Mt. Village, and Pilot Station power
plants using 515,819 gallons of diesel fuel. Although not yet modeled, wind turbines realistically could
provide 40 percent or more of these communities’ annual electrical power demand.
Solar power from photovoltaic solar arrays is a potential alternative, but has higher capital cost and
lower resource availability than wind in the area.
An in‐stream hydrokinetic turbine, similar to what was tested in Ruby, Alaska by the Yukon River Inter‐
Tribal Council in the summer of 2008, may be an energy option in the future, but this technology is in
the planning and development stage.
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.
St Mary’s has diesel generation totaling 2018 kW. The individual generators and installation dates
include a 499 kW (2006), a 611 kW (1987), and a 908 kW (1995).
Pilot Station has diesel generation totaling 1210 kW. The individual generator and installation dates
include a 397 kW (1998), a 499 kW (2005), and a 314 kW (2006)
Mt. Village has diesel generation totaling 2212 kW. The individual generators include a 350 kW (1984), a
505 kW (2005), a 601 kW (1982), and a 756 kW (1982).
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.
St Mary’s, Mt. Village, and Pilot Station all use diesel and heating oil as the primary energy resources.
Annual diesel fuel consumption for power generation in 2007 was:
St Mary’s 209,710 gal
Mt Village 178,980 gal
Pilot Station 127,129 gal
Total Fuel Used: 515,819 gallons
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 15 10/8/2008
Installation of wind turbines in the community would decrease the amount of diesel fuel used for power
generation.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
St. Mary’s is located on the Andreafsky River, 5 miles from its confluence with the Yukon River. The
community is about 450 miles northwest of Anchorage. Pilot Station is located 11 miles east of St.
Mary’s, and Mt. Village is located 20 miles from St. Mary’s. A 22 mile road connects St. Mary’s to
Andreafsky, Pitka’s Point, and Mountain Village. Average temperatures in the area range from ‐44 to
83° F.
The median household income is $39,375, $31,250, and $31,071 in St. Mary’s, Mt. Village, and Pilot
Station, respectively. All the communities have median household incomes well below the State’s
median household income of $59,036.
The electricity production in 2007 in St. Mary’s was 2,911,891 kWh, in Pilot Station was 1,669,729 kWh,
and in Mt. Village was 2,600,919 kWh. The load is highest during the winter months, with the bulk of
electricity consumed by residences and the school. AVEC expects the addition of wind turbines to the
electric generation system to reduce the amount of diesel fuel used for power generation and for
heating.
These communities are classified as isolated villages, 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 aids 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 community health clinics. Medical problems and emergencies
outside the practitioners’ knowledge 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.
In St. Mary’s, water is obtained from Alstrom Creek reservoir and is treated. The majority of the
community, facilities, and the school are connected to a piped water and sewer system. Waste heat
from the power plant supports the circulating water system. In Pilot Station, half the community is
served by piped water and sewer. Mountain Village operates a piped water and sewer system that
serves 200 households and facilities. 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.
Like all of Alaska, this area is subject to long periods of darkness. Reliable electric service is essential for
the operation of home lighting, streetlights, and security lighting. Outside lighting ensures the safety of
children.
Residents of these villages rely on subsistence resources including salmon, moose, bear, and waterfowl.
Subsistence food is gathered and harvested and stored in refrigerators and freezers. is essential for the
extended storage of perishable food stuffs. Reliable electric service is essential for proper freeze storage
of food.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 15 10/8/2008
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, Fiscal Year
2007, Alaska Energy Authority
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
Alternative Energy Technology. AVEC plans to conduct a Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment,
and Conceptual Design to assess the possibility of using wind power in Saint Mary’s, Mt. Village, and
Pilot Station. It is already known that the wind resource in Saint Mary’s is outstanding; what remains to
be identified is the optimum location for wind turbines taking into account the tradeoff of wind
resource and wind generation loss due to icing. Additionally, installing wind turbines in rime icing
environments is a significant challenge and AVEC intends to work closely with Northern Power Systems
and others to ensure that turbines eventually planned for installation in Saint Mary’s are suitable for its
environmental conditions.
Optimum installed capacity/Anticipated capacity factor/Anticipated annual generation. A conceptual
wind farm design has not yet been initiated and hence average annual penetration levels not yet
decided. It is contemplated however than the target average wind penetration will be 40 percent or
higher. Based on existing data collected from the Pitka’s Point met tower, a 30 meter hub height
NW100/21 turbine operating at 90 percent availability would have a capacity factor of approximately 34
percent.
Anticipated barriers. The potential barriers to success of this project include logistics, site access and
weather. The barriers are minor and do not pose a threat to the completion of project tasks to be
accomplished.
Basic integration concept/Delivery methods. Conceptual design, to be completed as a part of this
project, would detail how power from a wind turbine would be integrated and delivered into the
existing system. If the wind is suitable for development, the turbines will interconnect with the power
plant. It is expected that wind‐generated electrical energy will be delivered via the existing electrical
distribution.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the
project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
The met tower sites in Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s, the primary locations at present for wind turbines,
are on land owned by Pitka’s Point Native Corporation (Pitka’s Point met tower) and Nerklikmute Native
Corporation (Saint Mary’s met tower). These companies have offered memorandums of agreement to
allow use of this land for wind resource assessments and it is anticipated that no difficulties will be
encountered should wind turbine installations be proposed at these locations.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 15 10/8/2008
Azachorok, Ltd. Is the landowner of the prospective wind power site in Mountain Village. AVEC has not
yet entered into a land use agreement with Azachorok, Ltd as a final decision whether or not to install a
met tower in Mountain Village has not yet been made.
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
Permitting would be accomplished under this project. The likely needed permits include:
No Endangered Species Act listed species are found in the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concurred that the installation of a met tower would have no affect on threatened or endangered
species (See Tab 6‐Supplemental Materials).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required obstruction lighting for the Pitka’s Point met tower
because of its elevation and proximity to the Saint Mary’s airport, but similar lighting was not required
for the Saint Mary’s met tower. For installation of wind turbines in the future, FAA notification is again
required. It is anticipated that obstruction lighting will be required on any wind turbines to be installed,
although this is normal anyways. It is not anticipated that FAA will object to wind turbine installations at
the existing met tower sites.
FAA has already approved installation of a met tower with no restrictions at the proposed site in
Mountain Village should that site be selected for installation of a third met tower.
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 concurred that the placement of
wind turbines (and therefore a met tower) will have no affect on threatened or endangered species (See
Tab 6‐Supplemental Materials).
Habitat issues. Saint Mary’s is not within any State refuges, sanctuaries, or critical habitat areas, federal
refuges or wilderness areas, or national parks. In addition, Saint Mary’s is not within or near any critical
habitat for threatened or endangered species.
Wetlands and other protected areas. Depending on the outcome of this feasibility study, wind turbines
could be placed in wetland locations. An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ wetlands permit would be
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 15 10/8/2008
needed.
Archaeological and historical resources. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act with
the State Historic Preservation Officer would be conducted if the outcome of this study finds that wind
power is feasible in Saint Mary’s.
Land development constraints. The City of Saint Mary’s, the City of Pitka’s Point, Nerklikmute Native
Corp. and Pitka’s Point Native Corp. have stated that the present two met tower sites are the best
locations for wind turbines. With the cooperation of the land owners, there is no anticipated constraint
to development of these sites for wind power.
Aviation considerations. The met tower and geotechnical work would be located approximately two
miles from the active airport and outside any important operational aircraft area.
Visual, aesthetics impacts. Although the met tower and geotechnical work is proposed at sites on the
road connecting Saint Mary’s to Pitka’s Point and also to the airport and hence readily visible turbines
themselves should they be installed would not be visible from either village, nor from the airport.
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
AVEC plans to continue the Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment, and Conceptual Design to assess
the possibility of integrating wind power in Saint Mary’s. This work will cost 110,000. AVEC requests
$104,500 from AEA. AVEC will provide $5,500 as an in‐kind contribution.
AVEC acknowledges that the wind resource in Saint Mary’s is already known to be outstanding, but
further analysis is required to optimize wind resource against rime icing loss. Following the completion
of the wind resource assessment, the next phase of this project would be conceptual project and final
design and permitting. Although it is difficult to estimate this cost at this point in the process, AVEC
expects that Final Design and Permitting would cost $200,000. AVEC would provide a 5% in‐kind match
of $10,000. It is possible that the funding for this work could come from the AEA Renewable Energy
Program, the Denali Commission, a USDA Rural Utility Service program, or another grant program.
The final phase of this project would be Construction and Commissioning. AVEC estimates that this
phase could cost $6,000,000, assuming installation of four to five Northwind 100 wind turbines or
perhaps other turbines should ones be found with superior suitability for a rime icing environment.
AVEC would provide a 10% cash match of $600,000). It is possible that the funding for this work could
come from the AEA Renewable Energy Program, the Denali Commission, a USDA Rural Utility Service
program, or another grant program.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 15 10/8/2008
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
The met tower would require monthly monitoring and data management. It is expected that this will
cost $700. The cost will be funded by this grant award.
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
AVEC, the existing electric utility serving Saint Mary’s, Mt. Village, and Pilot Station, is a member owned
cooperative electric utility and typically owns and maintains the generation, fuel storage, and
distribution facilities in the villages it serves.
Saint Mary’s includes 186 housing units (2000 census), Mt. Village has 211 housing units, and Pilot
Station has 126 housing units. All of these homes purchase power from AVEC. These villages also have
community facilities, including a health clinic, city office, tribal council office, school, businesses, and
water treatment plant which purchase power from AVEC.
At this point in project development, the potential power price and rate of return on the project is
unknown.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
Please see 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 wind turbines will be incorporated into AVEC’s power plant operation. Local plant operators provide
daily servicing. AVEC technicians provide periodic preventative or corrective maintenance and are
supported by AVEC headquarters staff, purchasing, and warehousing.
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, if proved feasible, will be fully incorporated into AVEC’s power
plant operations; therefore, the wind turbines will be treated as generating equipment, just like the
generator sets. Maintenance schedules would be routinely developed and managed. The result would
be improved reliability from the existence of additional generating sources and reduced fuel
consumption from the use of wind.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 15 10/8/2008
Possible community growth, along with significant increases in the delivered cost of diesel fuel, makes
this local resource a timely candidate for evaluation for a feasibility analysis and conceptual design.
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
Potential Fuel Displacement: The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village power generation
in Saint Mary’s, Mt. Village, and Pilot Station currently totals over 515,819 gallons per year at a cost of
over $ 2 million (2008 delivered fuel price), although 100 percent displacement of diesel fuel for power
generation is not a realistic goal. An average wind power penetration of 40 percent is achievable.
However, much greater amounts of displaced fuel are possible if electric heating is used to displace
heating fuel. The exact amount of fuel displacement at this point in the project is not known.
Potential annual fuel displacement: In 2008, AVEC spent an average of $4.26 per gallon for the fuel for
power generation. If turbines are installed, the residents of Saint Mary’s, Pitka’s Point, and Mountain
Village, and Pilot Station when interties are constructed would benefit from decreased fuel use. The
value of this decreased fuel use could be around $563,499 annually. In addition, there is the potential to
decommission the existing Mt. Village and Pilot Station power plants, which would save approximately
$340,000 in operations and maintenance annually.
Anticipated annual revenue/Potential additional annual incentives/Potential additional annual
revenue streams. Because this project is in the feasibility and concept design stage, revenue and
incentives are unknown.
Non‐economic public benefits. If wind energy is feasible in Saint Mary’s and wind turbines are installed
in the community, energy costs could stabilize and long‐term socio‐economic benefits could result. Wind
power would have many environmental benefits resulting from a reduction of hydrocarbon use,
including reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination, improved air quality, and decreased
contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use.
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 costs through construction depend on the outcome of the wind resource study and
geotechnical report as well as construction year and market conditions; however, an estimate can be
made:
Estimated Final Design and Permitting: $200,000.
Estimated Construction and Commissioning: $6,000,000.
Estimated Project Total (including this phase): $6,310,000.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 15 10/8/2008
The total cost for this project phase is $110,000 of which $104,500 is requested in grant funds. The
remaining $5,500 will be matched in cash by AVEC. A detail of the costs is:
Milestone or Task State Funds
Local Match
Funds (In‐
Kind) TOTALS
1. Obtain Site Control/Right of
Entry/Permits $4,750 $250 $5,000
2. Erect, Monitor, Dismantle Met Tower $19,000 $1,000 $20,000
3. Complete Geotech Work $61,750 $3,250 $65,000
4. Complete Wind Resource Report $9,500 $500 $10,000
5. Complete Conceptual Design $9,500 $500 $10,000
TOTALS $104,500 $5,500 $110,000
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.
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 St Mary’s has diesel generation totaling 2018 kW. The
individual generators and installation dates include a
499 kW (2006), a 611 kW (1987), and a 908 kW (1995).
Pilot Station has diesel generation totaling 1210 kW.
The individual generator and installation dates include a
397 kW (1998), a 499 kW (2005), and a 314 kW (2006)
Mt. Village has diesel generation totaling 2212 kW. The
individual generators include a 350 kW (1984), a 505
kW (2005), a 601 kW (1982), and a 756 kW (1982).
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other Total: 5440 kW
St Mary’s, 2018 kW, Mt Village 1210 kW, Pilot Station
2212 kW.
iii. Generator/boilers/other type
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other See Section 2a)I above
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other
b) Annual O&M cost
i. Annual O&M cost for labor
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] Total: 7,182,539 kWh
St Mary’s 2,911,891 kWh, Mt Village 2,600,919 kWh, Pilot Station 1,669,729 kWh
ii. Fuel usage (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank
Diesel [gal] Total: 515,819 gallons
St Mary’s 209,710 gal, Mt Village 178,980 gal, Pilot Station 127,129 gal
Other
iii. Peak Load Total: 1497 kW for 2007
(St Mary’s 590 KW, Pilot Station 370 kW, Mt Village 537 kW)
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1
Renewable Energy Fund
iv. Average Load Total: 820 kW
(St Mary’s 332 kW, Mt Village 191 kW, Pilot Station 297 kW)
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency 13.9245 kWh per gallon
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
3. Proposed System Design
a) Installed capacity 600 kW
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh] 1,839,600
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 $6,310,000
b) Development cost
c) Annual O&M cost of new system
d) Annual fuel cost (savings)
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 132,112 gallons
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel $563,499
Based on 2008 average fuel price for St Mary’s $4.2653 per gal.
c) Other economic benefits
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3
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 1.786
Payback 11.2 years (simple)
Tab 4
Grant Budget Form
Alaska Energy Authority - Renewable Energy Fund
St. Mary's Wind Feasibility Project
BUDGET INFORMATION
BUDGET SUMMARY:
Milestone or Task Federal Funds State Funds
Local Match
Funds (Cash)
Local Match
Funds (In-Kind)Other Funds TOTALS
1. Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits $4,750.00 $250.00 $5,000.00
2. Erect, Monitor, Dismantle Met Tower $19,000.00 $1,000.00 $20,000.00
3. Complete Geotech Work $61,750.00 $3,250.00 $65,000.00
4. Complete Wind Resource Report $9,500.00 $500.00 $10,000.00
5. Complete Conceptual Design $9,500.00 $500.00 $10,000.00
TOTALS $104,500.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 $0.00 $110,000.00
Milestone # or Task #
BUDGET CATAGORIES:1 2 3 4 5 TOTALS
Direct Labor and Benefits $250.00 $1,000.00 $3,250.00 $500.00 $500.00 $5,500.00
Travel, Meals, or Per Diem $0.00
Equipment $0.00
Supplies $0.00
Contractual Services $4,750.00 $19,000.00 $61,750.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $104,500.00
Construction Services $0.00
Other Direct Costs $0.00
TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $65,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $110,000.00
RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
Tab 5
Delegation of Authority
Tab 6
Supplemental Materials
Alagaaciq Tribal Council Letter of Support
Nerklikmute Native Corporation Statement of
Non-Objection for Met Tower Placement
USFWS Concurrence of No Affect of Met
Tower on Threatened or Endangered
Species.
AEA Wind Resource Map for St. Mary’s
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