HomeMy WebLinkAboutTanana River Hydrokinetic Project App
Whitestone Community Association| Box 1630 | Delta Junction, AK 99737
Renewable Energy Fund
November 08
Grant Application
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 16 9/2/2008
Application Forms and Instructions
The following forms and instructions are provided for preparing your application for a
Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA)
and the forms are available online at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html
The following application forms are required to be submitted for a grant recommendation:
Grant Application
Form
GrantApp.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of
information required to submit a complete application.
Applicants should use the form to assure all information is
provided and attach additional information as required.
Application Cost
Worksheet
Costworksheet.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed
by applicants in preparing their application.
Grant Budget
Form
GrantBudget.xls A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of
costs by task and a summary of funds available and
requested to complete the work for which funds are being
requested.
Grant Budget
Form Instructions
GrantBudgetInstr.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form.
If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application
forms for each project.
Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide 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.
If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with
your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
REMINDER:
Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act, AS 40.25 and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 2 of 16 9/3/2008
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Whitestone Community Association
Type of Entity:
Corporation
Mailing Address
PO BOX 1630
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Physical Address
Mile 275 Richardson Highway
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Telephone
907-895-4938
Fax
907-895-4787
Email
steve@wca-ak.us
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Steve Selvaggio
Title
President, WCA
Mailing Address
PO BOX 1229
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Telephone
907-803-5432
Fax
907-895-4787
Email
steve@wca-ak.us
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer, or
A local government, or
x A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If 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 3 of 16 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.
Whitestone Community Association (WCA) is proposing to enter Phase III - Final Design and
Permitting, and Phase IV – Construction / Operation, of a River In-Stream Energy Conversion
(RISEC) project. This proposed project will use renewable river in-stream (or river current)
hydrokinetic energy (the energy in the free-flowing water stream without using a dam) from the
nearby Tanana River. Phases I and II have already been completed.
The specific objective of Phase III – Part 1 of this project is to conduct all work necessary to
complete engineering design, conduct baseline environmental studies, and submit all license
applications required for a pilot RISEC generating plant in the Tanana River. The specific
objective of Phase IV – Part 1 is data gathering and evaluation/analysis for both off-grid (WCA)
and grid-connected [i.e., the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid] operation.
Following successful completion of Phase III – Part 1, and Phase IV – Part 1, the next steps
would be Phase III – Part 2 and Phase IV – Part 2 for the build out of an expanded RISEC
generating plant. Successful results on this project will open up the possibility of RISEC plants
in other sites on Alaskan rivers.
The overarching goal of this four-phase WCA RISEC Project is to conduct in-water testing and
evaluation of RISEC technology representative of what could be expected for a commercial-
scale hydrokinetic power plant. This will enable WCA as well as others to make an informed
evaluation as to the extent river energy can be employed as a renewable energy resource in
Alaska or elsewhere on the nation’s rivers. WCA is committed to the development of this
abundant but under-tested resource in Alaska.
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.
WCA proposes a hydrokinetic renewable energy project to be implemented on the nearby
Tanana River, approximately 2000-3000 feet downriver from the Richardson Highway crossing
near Big Delta, Alaska. This proposed project encompasses Phases III and IV of a four-phase
program. Reconnaissance and feasibility studies were performed by Electric Power Research
Institute, Inc. (EPRI) in 2007 and 2008. The purpose was to assess technical, economic,
financial, and operational viability of a project and to narrow the focus of final design and
construction. The reconnaissance and feasibility studies have shown that this proposed project
is warranted. Electronic copies of the reconnaissance and feasibility reports are available on
EPRI’s website at http://oceanenergy.epri.com/risec.html#reports.
Building on information gathered in Phases I and II, WCA shall establish the project
configuration and specifications that will be used to guide construction, further refine project cost
estimates, finalize business plans, and obtain land use and resource authorizations required for
construction. This proposed project encompasses the final design and permitting and
construction/operation phases for a pilot RISEC plant and subsequent expanded generating
plant serving the Whitestone Community on the Tanana River. The electricity produced by the
pilot generating plant will be operated in two modes; first, exclusively connected to the remote
Whitestone power distribution grid, and then, when deemed successful, connected to the GVEA
power transmission / distribution grid. This project will be managed by WCA, with technical
support provided by EPRI; system integration and construction management support from CE2
Engineers, Inc. (CE2); a RISEC technology developer to be selected; and other necessary
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 16 9/3/2008
support contractors to be identified and selected. This phased project will be progressively
conducted with a gated decision process allowing for data evaluation prior to proceeding with
construction.
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 preliminary capital cost summary is provided in Attachment F. WCA anticipates receiving
funding of $3,880,660 through this AEA Renewable Energy Fund grant. WCA will provide a
labor/equipment/in-kind match of $50,000. Electrical subcontractor Last Frontier Electric
is providing a $15,000 cash match and a 20 year warranty inspection plus small parts valued at
$20,000 (which breaks down to $1,000/ year for 20 years).
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.
WCA has reliably produced its own electrical power since 1981. WCA’s current average
production rate is approximately $.46 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). WCA anticipates a GVEA
intertie in 2009, reducing the power cost initially by half, to approximately $.22/kWh. The
financial benefit of this proposed hydrokinetic project includes the overall production of
electricity at an estimated rate of less than $.05/kWh, about a tenth of WCA’s current production
rate, and less than one quarter of GVEA’s commercial power rate.
A primary benefit to the Alaskan public is the introduction of a new form of electricity generation
that has the potential of being applicable to as many as a third of Alaska’s rural communities,
which are located near rivers. Many of those communities are currently facing economic
hardships due to their dependency on costly diesel fuel. Their economic burden could be lifted
through the validation of the readily available, virtually perpetual resource of hydrokinetic
energy. Through the success of this hydrokinetic energy project, we would expect to see it
replicated at many rural villages throughout the state, reducing Alaska’s carbon footprint. Other
public benefits include the use of an emission-less renewable energy source as well as
economic development; facilities installation, operation, and maintenance will stimulate local
economies through job creation.
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.)
$ 3,965,660
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 3,880,660
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 85,000
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $ 3,965,660
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) Approximately $ 20,000 per year for the
first two years with just the Pilot Plant,
then over $109,000 per year with the
Expanded Plant for a total of over $3.9
million over the next 23 years
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.)
Non-tangible benefits include: using a
renewable, green source of energy to
replace fossil fuel-generated electricity.
Reduction in our carbon footprint.
Maintenance is performed locally,
keeping jobs in the community.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 16 9/3/2008
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.
Whitestone Community Association president, Mr. Steve Selvaggio, will be the Project Manager.
Mr. Selvaggio will have overall responsibility for the technical, scheduling, and financial success
of the project. He will also be the primary point of contact for liaison with AEA. Mr. Selvaggio will
be responsible for assuring AEA’s satisfaction with the process and end product of the project. A
copy of Mr. Selvaggio’s resume is provided in Attachment A. Mr. Selvaggio will be assisted by
O. Fabian Chavez, another Whitestone community resident with extensive experience in the
construction, operation, and maintenance of Whitestone’s current power plant. A copy of Mr.
Chavez’s resume is also provided in Attachment A.
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.)
A preliminary gantt chart outlining the proposed work is provided below. Significant milestones
are discussed in the next section.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 16 9/3/2008
This is a preliminary schedule only, based on funding as identified in the Grant Application
package. Any delays in funding and notice to proceed will impact the schedule, and activities will
be realigned.
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
Key milestones include:
1. Kickoff Meeting for presenting a detailed project plan and assuring mutual expectations
amongst project participants.
2. Decision Gate for proceeding from Phase III Final Design and Permitting, Part 1, to
Phase IV Construction and Operations, Part 1 – Pilot Plant.
3. Completion of construction and beginning of operations in the WCA grid mode.
4. Completion of operations in the WCA grid mode and beginning of operations in the GVEA
connected grid mode.
5. Completion of the Pilot Plant program and decision gate for proceeding with Expanded
Plant build-out.
6. Completion of Expanded Plant construction and beginning of operations.
7. Project Closeout.
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.
WCA has and will assemble a highly qualified, experienced, and multidisciplinary team of
personnel to implement this proposed hydrokinetic project. WCA has a wealth of skilled labor
available to draw from for the administrative support and construction of this project. The
community fuel storage facility was built primarily with local craft labor in 2005. Other project
resources include:
System Integration and Engineering Contractor – Brian Aklin/CE2 Engineers, Inc.
Natural resources and fish habitat consultant – Donald Degan/ Aquacoustics, Inc.
Hydrologist – Chris Roach, PE
Electrical subcontractor – Fred Sheen/Last Frontier Electric
Structural engineer – John Hasz, PE/Hasz Consulting Company
RISEC technology provider – to be selected
Systems integration and construction project management assistance will be provided by CE2
Engineers, Inc. (CE2). CE2 has a broad range of experience in management of rural Alaska
force account construction projects. CE2’s President, Mr. Brian Aklin has over 30 years of
construction experience. Brian performs all aspects of construction management, including
constructability reviews, cost estimating, procurement, scheduling, and site supervision. Brian’s
leadership and thorough knowledge of construction techniques, personnel supervision, and cost
analysis enables CE2 to achieve timely results and cooperation within rural communities. Brian
has managed force account construction for nearly $55 million dollars of bulk fuel, power plant
and rural power system upgrades, sanitation, and road projects throughout Alaska, from Chignik
Bay to Hooper Bay, Nome to Pelican, Seldovia to Whitestone, and most points in between.
Fish studies will be conducted by Mr. Donald Degan with Aquacoustics, Inc., a consultant
specializing in the field of fisheries acoustics and geographic information systems (GIS). With
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 16 9/3/2008
over 30 years of experience, Aquacoustics provides fisheries acoustics expertise to government
agencies and private industry in support of regulatory compliance and fish population studies.
They use non-invasive sonar technology to estimate numbers and study fish behavior,
distribution, and habitat.
Hydrologist Chris Roach, PE, will provide river hydraulic and hydrological services to assist in
proper location of the hydrokinetic turbines. With over 16 years of applied river engineering
experience throughout Alaska, he is well qualified to support WCA on this project.
Electrical interconnection while be provided by local electrician Fred Sheen/Last Frontier Electric.
Mr. Sheen has over a dozen years of experience with GVEA and in the local Delta area. His
knowledge of both sides of the power equation will simplify the construction and implementation
of the Pilot Plant. Local structural engineer John Hasz, PE, will provide support for the structural
design as necessary. A RISEC technology provider will be selected during the final design
process.
Mr. Selvaggio will continue to receive technical support from EPRI. EPRI is a non-profit, public-
benefit organization leading innovation in strategic areas of electricity technology. Over the past
four years, EPRI has performed technical and economic feasibility studies for offshore wave and
tidal/river current energy conversion. The tidal/river work evaluated the application of water
turbines to convert the kinetic energy in a tidal/river stream to electricity. The tidal/river feasibility
study conducted by EPRI at Whitestone makes a compelling case for the use of RISEC
technology.
Resumes and Statement of Qualifications for key personnel are provided in Attachment A.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
WCA’s Project Manager Steve Selvaggio will be responsible for the overall technical schedule
and financial performance of the project. The WCA project manager shall also manage the
preparation of all required reports and the execution of all required briefings and presentations.
Mr. Selvaggio will monitor the project and serve as the liaison with AEA. He has worked closely
with AEA over the last five years, and is well-acquainted with their personnel and reporting
requirements. WCA proposes the following plan to keep the Authority informed of the status of
the project:
1. Monthly informal progress status reports (email format)
2. Annual progress reports
3. Periodic briefings, to include:
a. an initial kickoff briefing of the detailed project implementation plan,
b. a mid-term review between Phase III – Part 1 and Phase IV – Part 1, after which
the decision to go forward with construction of the Pilot Plant or a decision to
terminate the project will be made, and
c. a final briefing of all project results.
The objective of project communications is to ensure that the project fully meets all AEA
requirements by providing timely updates and all necessary reports.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
WCA will implement a risk identification and mitigation program which will run throughout the
period of performance. The primary risks and proposed mitigation plan is as follows:
1. Risk of increased project cost – the cost estimate to construct and operate the plant is
currently at the preliminary design stage of development. There is a risk that the cost will
increase during the final design stage of development. This risk will be mitigated first, by
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 16 9/3/2008
not selecting a RISEC technology provider until Phase IV; by doing that selection in a
competitive manner; and setting a budget which will not be exceeded.
2. Risk of measurable environmental affects – As RISEC technology is emerging, there are
uncertainties about interactions between the RISEC turbines and the environment in
which they are generating electricity. The mitigation measure is one of monitoring the
environmental affects and if the effects are egregious, to mitigate them and if that is not
possible, to pull the RISEC turbines out of the water.
WCA is proposing to be an early adopter of RISEC technology and we are willing to assume the
associated risks. WCA will actively share the data collected as a result of our project with
interested parties throughout the course of the project. Demonstration of increased cost certainty
and minimal environmental effects of this technology at Whitestone will benefit other potential
users of RISEC technology. Once validation is achieved, many remote villages located near
rivers elsewhere in Alaska could implement the same technology at a lower cost through this
data sharing process.
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the
RFA. The level of information will vary according to phase of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and
grant budget for completion of each phase.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project.
Approximately 500KW of extractable hydro power could be harvested from the proposed WCA
hydrokinetic location at the Tanana River. At this point in WCA’s investigation of alternative
technologies, hydrokinetic power generation appears to be the most feasible because of the vast
abundance of river power adjacent to the community, constantly flowing at high volume rates.
Hydrokinetic technology is rapidly moving forward in development and is expected to reliably
accommodate a variety of river environments. Solar, solar parabolic, geothermal, heat pump
technology and well as wind energy have all been considered by WCA, with lower than marginal
reliability and return benefits.
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 new WP&C power plant employs two new 250 kW generating sets with John Deere model
6090HF Tier III diesel engines for constant power generation. Generated power is stepped up
from 480 volt three-phase to 12,470 three-phase and then dropped to commercial and residential
voltages throughout four miles of well-maintained grid. Construction of a GVEA intertie is
planned for 2009.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 16 9/3/2008
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.
WCA has traditionally relied on diesel fuel to provide power to the community through generators
in a locally maintained power plant, which currently produces power at an approximate cost of
$.46/kWh. WCA is in the process of installing a new power plant and distribution system, which
is targeted for GVEA interconnection in 2009. WCA will then be powered with GVEA’s coal
turbine generation ($.22/kWh) with WP&C's diesel power generation as backup. Both types of
generation are becoming increasingly unstable in cost as well as increasing concerns with
regard to the environmental hazards of the continued use of fossil fuels and associated carbon
emissions. The Pilot Plant will initially offset WCA’s power demands to GVEA. Through the
buildout of the Expanded Plant, WCA will generate sufficient power to meet the bulk of the
community’s needs throughout the operational period, again reducing demand to GVEA.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
As with many Alaskan communities, WCA currently produces our own power with diesel fuel as
the sole non-renewable resource. Recent instabilities in the oil market have had a huge negative
economic impact throughout Alaska. WCA is committed to an implementation of the RISEC
technology which harnesses and utilizes the hydrokinetic energy from a nearby river. This
abundant, clean, renewable energy is available all over Alaska. The Preliminary Value Analysis
provided in Attachment G indicates that hydrokinetic energy can be produced locally at an
average low cost around $.05/kWh. WCA will share the data and experience gathered during this
project with all interested parties to maximize the potential for use of this perpetual energy
resource. Providing clean power at a low cost has the potential to benefit any rural community
located near a river, which describes almost half the communities in Alaska.
WCA has successfully provided for its own power needs since the community was established in
1981. With this background in maintaining power production systems, WCA is well positioned to
assume a leadership role in proving hydrokinetic technology as a viable, renewable energy
resource. Once proven, the impact on energy customers is significant: a lesser reliance on high-
priced fossil fuels, use of a local renewable resource, and a reduction in carbon emissions and
our overall carbon footprint. The overall application of this technology will be beneficial not just in
rural Alaska, but worldwide.
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
A RISEC machine consists of multiple horizontal or vertical axis rotors that are immersed into the
stream, connected to a power conversion system that generates electricity suitable for direct
connection to the electrical grid. These power-modules are mounted onto a structure suitable for
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 16 9/3/2008
the installation location. During the feasibility study, different design options were investigated
and parametrically modeled to determine and quantify principal advantages and disadvantages.
Mounting multiple rotors on a single support structure was a primary strategy to reduce cost and
improve the economic attractiveness of such a design. EPRI established a conceptual RISEC
device suitable for deployment at the Whitestone site. A horizontal axis machine was chosen for
the feasibility study, and a fixed pitch rotor was chosen because of the resulting lower machine
complexity. A floating platform was designed, consisting of two floating pontoons from which
rotors are suspended into the water column. A water-tight box on the deck accommodates
frequency converters and other electrical protection equipment required for grid interconnection.
The mooring system consists of a combination of conventional steel cables and chains. An
embedment anchor provides the necessary holding strength. In order to provide directional
stability, the rotors are counter-rotating to offset their torque and the rotors are mounted toward
the back of the pontoon. The rotor size can be adjusted to accommodate the water depth at the
site. If rotor size is increased, the corresponding pontoon width will be increased as well. The
basic structure can accommodate rotor sizes from 1m to 4m in diameter.
The initial pilot RISEC plant will consist of one pontoon boat with four suspended rotors, rated at
an estimated 24kW capacity. Conceptual diagrams of the pontoon structure assembly follow.
Figure 1 ‐ Pontoon with rotors lowered
Optimum installed capacity is 103kW, which will be reached in the second construction phase
with the expanded generating plant. All of the available energy generated through this project will
be utilized, either directly by WCA or potentially fed to the GVEA grid.
The system operating period is estimated at seven months per year. This will be reviewed and
adjusted as more river data is gathered to ascertain the optimal operating period. An increase in
the operating period of an extra month per year will boost power production while helping reduce
the payback period.
The capacity factor is estimated at 80 – 100% of the rated capacity of the hydrokinetic units.
However, in periods of low community electrical loads, any excess capacity could be either used
as a heat source or diverted to GVEA, so the capacity factor should remain nearer 100%.
Anticipated annual generation at the Pilot Plant is 122,640 kWh. Anticipated annual generation at
the Expanded Plant is 403,690 kWh.
Potential barriers include environmental/permitting considerations for working on, in, or near fish
habitat. WCA initiated preliminary meetings with representatives of the State of Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (DFG), United State Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and State of
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). WCA will continue working harmoniously with
these and other involved agencies as well as regional native organizations to ensure the
Figure 2 –Pontoon with rotors up
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 16 9/3/2008
protection of the environment throughout the course of the project.
Grid interconnection will be accomplished using a short underwater umbilical cable to shore from
the unit deployment location. The deployment location will require about 250 feet of underwater
electrical cabling back to shore, and is interconnected on shore by a 1/2-mile long distribution
line. Facilities will require a dedicated transformer, revenue metering, a disconnect device, a
circuit interrupting device and a multifunction relay. All devices are connected to the same cable
that connects the array back on land.
Power will be provided primarily to the WCA’s existing power plant for distribution locally to meet
WCA demand. GVEA grid connection testing is anticipated after initial local system testing. Any
excess power generated but not consumed locally could be diverted to GVEA.
Value engineering will be a key focus throughout the project to achieve cost efficiencies which
can translate to substantial savings, resulting in an even lower energy cost per kilowatt hour, as
well as shrinking the payback period.
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.
Connection from the shore to the power plant will occur along an existing utility easement on
land owned by the State of Alaska, and partially on church-owned land (Church of the Living
Word, Inc.). WCA has contacted and is working with the site owners to obtain the necessary
easements and lease agreements, and will continue to work with DNR to coordinate land use
and obtain water rights permits.
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
In addition to a State Fire Marshall’s plan review, State and Federal permits anticipated for this
hydrokinetic project include, but are not limited to:
Permit Regulatory Agency
Estimated
Processing Time
Land Use Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources
(DNR)
60 days
Fish Habitat Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game
(DFG)
60 days
Sec 10 Navigable
Waterways
US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE)
60 days
Sec 404 Wetlands Permit
(if Wetlands are identified)
60 days
Hydrokinetic Pilot Project
Preliminary Permit
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC)
6 months for expedited
processing
WCA has submitted an application to FERC for a preliminary permit which is required to hold first
exclusive rights to develop the resource throughout the Phase III period. WCA also initiated a
preliminary informational meeting with local representatives of the other Federal and State
permitting agencies listed above to introduce the proposed hydrokinetic project, which is one of
the first of its kind in Alaska. An overview of the project was presented at the meeting, followed
by a question and answer session to identify the potential areas of concern and/or interest by the
Federal and State agencies. Since RISEC technology is emerging, WCA anticipates that the
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 16 9/3/2008
permitting process may also be a learning process as the involved agencies develop their
guidelines. WCA will be responsive to all agency requests for information throughout the course
of the permitting process.
WCA will execute a comprehensive communications plan to keep all stakeholders informed.
Potential barriers could include concerns of other river users, such as local or regional native
organizations. Concerns shall be addressed through a combination of the public information and
permitting processes, but WCA is committed to sharing data and working with these groups to
alleviate their concerns. Given proper care in siting, design, construction, and operations, WCA
believes that RISEC power will be one of the more benign ways to generate electricity.
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
An environmental framework will be developed to define the information needed for a baseline
assessment of conditions, as well as the requirements for an optimum long term monitoring
program. There are no threatened or endangered species in the project area. Habitat issues
include the need for a Title 16 permit and the possibility of impacts of RISEC technology on the
Tanana River fish habitat. This issue will be studied by a qualified consultant (Aquacoustics,
Inc.). WCA is working with the USFWS to confirm that the project area does not contain wetlands
or other protected areas. WCA will work with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as
necessary to protect any archaeological or historical resources, although there are no
archaeological or historical concerns at the project location. There are no applicable land
development constraints, no telecommunications interference, and no aviation considerations.
The only visual/aesthetic impact that has been identified is the need for identification and
permitting of the pontoon boat as a navigational barrier on the river.
Potential barriers, as identified in Section 4.3.1 of this application, include environmental /
permitting considerations for working on, in, or near fish habitat. WCA initiated preliminary
meetings with DNR, Fish & Game, USFWS, and the Corps of Engineers. WCA will continue
working harmoniously with these and other involved agencies to ensure the protection of the
environment throughout the course of the project.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 16 9/3/2008
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
The total anticipated project cost is $3,965,660
Project development is estimated at $885,745
The requested grant funding is $3,880,660
Applicant matching funds are $50,000 (in-kind)
Other matching funds include $15,000 cash and $20,000 in-kind (warranty inspection for
20 years from the electrical subcontractor)
The project capital cost of the proposed WCA hydrokinetic renewable energy system is
$3,965,660, with a projected development cost of $885,745
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
Annual operating and maintenance costs for the hydrokinetic system are estimated at $9,000 for
the Pilot Plant, and $13,351 for the Expanded Plant. These funds are available through annual
budgeting and accounting systems that are already in place at WCA. A skilled labor pool is in
place to support the reasonable life of the complete project, and the Electrical Subcontractor will
provide an annual warranty inspection with labor and small parts included, valued at $1,000 per
year for a 20-year period. No grant funds are requested for these O&M costs.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
The power buyer is the same as the power project owner, the Whitestone Community
Association (WCA). Power generated by this project will be used, initially, to displace a portion of
the load currently provided by WCA’s diesel-generated power plant (which will be provided by
GVEA starting in 2009). Power generated by this project will be at a much lower cost ($.05/kWH)
than that produced through our existing diesel generator plant ($.46/kWh), or the through GVEA
($.22/kWh) after installation of the intertie (2009). It is anticipated that the power produced by this
proposed hydrokinetic project will primarily meet a portion of the needs of WCA. The goal of this
project is to prove the RISEC technology while supplying reliable power to our community.
Through interconnection with GVEA, power generated by the hydrokinetic project in excess of
WCA needs could be diverted to GVEA. However, it is not WCA’s goal through this project to
become an independent power producer.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
The AEA application cost worksheet has been completed and provided in Attachment B.
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 16 9/3/2008
An operating and maintenance plan is in place for the completed project provided by WCA.
Annual operating funds are anticipated through annual budgeting and accounting systems that
are in place. A skilled labor pool is in place to support the reasonable life of the complete project.
4.4.6 Analysis and Recommendations
Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your
recommendation for additional project development work.
A payback period calculation is shown on the Preliminary Value Analysis Worksheet provided in
Attachment G. This calculation assumes hydrology and fish studies (baselining) begin in 2009,
Pilot Plant installation and operation begins in 2010, followed by Expanded Plant buildout and
operation in 2012. The analysis assumes a conservative operation period of seven months each
year. Should WCA achieve an eight month operation period, the increase in power production
could cut two years off the payback period. Another potential option to be evaluated, depending
on water depth and volume, is underwater mooring of the pontoons. This also has the potential
to further increase the operating period and reduce the payback period.
The pilot RISEC generating plant is built for the primary purpose of gaining technical,
environmental and commercial confidence in the relatively new technology and not for the
singular purpose of economics. To that end, this analysis presents the combined cost and
performance of both plants. While the initial payback period is estimated at 26 years, through
careful consideration and planning combined with value engineering and testing, WCA can hope
to achieve substantial savings at the Expanded Plant level, resulting in an even lower energy
cost per kilowatt hour and further reductions to the payback period.
As typical with technology demonstration, the project development costs are estimated to be
nearly one quarter of the entire project cost. Through the sharing of the data gathered on an
ongoing basis throughout the course of this first of its kind, pilot hydrokinetic project, WCA’s
experience will be available to others hoping to employ this green, renewable energy resource.
These costs will not need to be duplicated by others utilizing this technology in the future.
WCA is aware that working closely with permitting agencies including USFWS, USACE, DNR,
DFG, and FERC, as well as local native organizations is essential to furthering the development
of RISEC technology and ensuring the overall success of this project. WCA is fully committed to
the required high level of communication to achieve the project goals.
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
Economic benefits:
Assuming diesel-fired power, potential annual fuel displacement is between 50-52,000
gallons of diesel per year, be it from WCA or GVEA (based on an industrial average rate
of 13.5 kWh per gallon of diesel).
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 15 of 16 9/3/2008
Anticipated annual revenue is not defined, as it is not a project goal for WCA to become
an independent power producer.
Potential additional annual incentives may include Carbon Credits, if a Federal or State
Program is developed during the course of this project. None are available at this time.
There are no other known revenue streams at this time, but something may develop
through world-wide environmental requirements as a result of ongoing climate changes
and concerns. WCA will be proactive in monitoring renewable energy issues and
incentives throughout the course of the project.
Non-economic benefits
Annual reduction in CO2 emissions
Local job creation
Reduced reliance on diesel fuel and substituting the use of a local and indigenous
resource: the kinetic energy in the Tanana River
The proving of renewable energy technology is becoming critical here in Alaska as well as
nationally and world-wide. Immediate steps must be taken, whenever and wherever possible, to
reduce dependency on fossil fuels as well as carbon emissions. WCA is totally committed to that
cause and to developing RISEC technology for the long-range benefit of all.
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
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the
project.
The AEA Grant Budget Form has been completed and provided in Attachment C. The total
project cost is $3,965,660, which includes $885,745 in project development. WCA is prepared to
provide a Labor / Equipment / in-kind match of $50,000. WCA is also committed to support the
project after its completion with funds made available through annual budgeting and accounting
systems already in place. WCA already has the necessary personnel to oversee and maintain
this project for its estimated reasonable life. Last Frontier Electric is providing a $15,000 cash
match and a 20-year warranty inspection plus small parts valued at $20,000 (breakdown: annual
maintenance inspection with small parts valued at $1,000 per year, for 20 years).
With a focus on value engineering throughout the project, WCA anticipates achieving cost
efficiencies which can translate to substantial savings, which can reduce the payback period.
Many renewable energy sources, such as hydrokinetic energy, are virtually untapped at this
time. The goal of this project is to prove the RISEC technology and share the data collected with
others interested in utilizing this abundant, renewable resource to displace fossil fuels. The
feasibility study shows that this project is warranted. Only through a field installation can the
technology be proven in an Alaskan river environment. WCA is uniquely positioned, through our
location and long history of reliable power production, to see this pioneer renewable energy
project through to a successful conclusion.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 16 of 16 9/3/2008
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A. Resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and
suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4
B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 6.
D. An electronic version of the entire application per RFA Section 1.6
E. Governing Body Resolution per RFA Section 1.4
Enclose a copy of the resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant’s
governing body or management that:
- authorizes this application for project funding at the match amounts indicated in
the application
- authorizes the individual named as point of contact to represent the applicant for
purposes of this application
- states the applicant is in compliance with all federal state, and local, laws
including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
F. CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful
and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply
with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
Print Name Steve Selvaggio
Signature
Title President, WCA
Date 11/10/08
Whitestone Community Association Renewable Energy Grant Fund Application Attachments
Attachment A:
Resumes
Pr
S
CE2
Ph.
Fax
repared
tate
2 Enginee
907.349
907.349
d for the
men
e rs, Inc.
.1010
9 .1015
e White
nt of
| PO Box
estone C
f Qua
x 232946
Commu
alific
|Ancho
unity As
catio
rage, AK
sociatio
ons
99523
on
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
G ENERAL E XPERIENCE, Q UALIFICATIONS AND B USINESS H ISTORY ................ 1
I NTRODUCTION OF CE2’S P ROJECT T EAM .......................................................... 3
S PECIFIC C ONSTRUCTION M ANAGEMENT/SUPERVISION E XPERIENCE ........... 5
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
G ENERAL E XPERIENCE, Q UALIFICATIONS AND B USINESS H ISTORY
CE2 Engineers (CE2) was founded in 1985 by bush sanitary design engineer Chuck
Eggener, P.E. and bush construction superintendent Brian Aklin to provide rural Alaska
communities with planning, design engineering, and force account construction
management services. In 2003, with the retirement of Chuck Eggener, Brian Aklin
assumed the leadership role as president of CE2. To date, we have successfully
planned, designed, and managed force account construction for over $350 million in
bulk fuel improvements, power plant construction, and rural sanitation to over 50
Alaskan communities, statewide. CE2 has managed force account construction for over
$300 million in energy (bulk fuel and rural power system upgrades) and infrastructure
projects for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
(AVEC), and State of Alaska, Village Safe Water Program. Our success stems from our
commitment to putting the local community to work, and our philosophy that public
works projects are best constructed by the ultimate end users.
CE2’s headquarters is a two-story 7,500 square foot secure heated combined office,
shop, and warehouse building with a fenced laydown yard, located just off Dimond
Boulevard in South Anchorage. From our central location CE2 is able to provide a full
range of construction management services including material procurement and freight
consolidation, warehouse and expediting services, and project management and
administrative support.
We are equipped with the latest electronic technology at 23 desktop computer
workstations currently, with laptops as well as digital cameras for our traveling staff.
Our project management team uses Microsoft Project scheduling software. Project
support personnel utilize the latest version of the Microsoft Office Suite, and our site
superintendents are provided with electronic copies of CE2’s standard forms and
reporting documents. Whenever possible and economically feasible, CE2’s site
superintendents are able to communicate quickly not only via phone but via the Internet
to email reports, digital photos, or other electronic files. This ensures that the home
team can keep abreast of progress as well as any issues at the project sites.
CE2 is a stable and mature business with a highly experienced staff; therefore we can
readily commit the resources needed to ensure the success of all the projects we are
involved with.
Over the last ten years CE2 Procurement and Logistics Officer Mike Tate has honed our
procurement and material tracking procedures to meet our Client’s procurement
requirements. He leads the procurement team, issuing and guiding project managers
on bid solicitations (including large sealed bid procurements), preparing purchase
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE 2
orders, and managing the expediting and warehouse functions, including freight
consolidation and tracking. The project administration group processes invoices for
project management approval and Client submission and maintains project purchase
order tracking logs.
At the field level, the site superintendent prepares and submits daily project reports,
performs quality assurance/quality control inspections and provides all required testing
documentation, maintains red lines, and works with contractors to ensure contract
compliance. The site superintendent also submits all field-generated invoice and
receipt documentation for small procurements to the project administration group for
reconciliation with vendor statements and/or invoices. All field-incurred charges are
verified prior to payment approval.
Safety is a key factor in CE2’s construction projects. CE2’s site superintendents receive
Red Cross CPR/First Aid training with required updates. They conduct weekly safety
meetings with the force account crews to ensure that all participants are aware of how
to perform their work in a safe manner. CE2 prepares and provides required site-
specific safety plans, and the site superintendents are responsible for review with the
crew and compliance.
Our highly experienced staff includes project managers, field superintendents, and a
top-caliber team of office-based project support personnel: an office manager,
procurement officer, warehouseman/expediter, and construction and project
administrators. As a seasonal employer, we also have qualified maintenance
mechanics, welders, journeyman plumbers, and a journeyman carpenter available, if
required to supplement the local workforce.
In addition to our full range of in-house resources, CE2 has developed long-term
working relationships with Alaskan subconsultants who are experts in their respective
fields, and would be available to work with us on projects, including (but not limited to):
electrical and mechanical engineers, qualified journeyman field electricians, and
structural engineers.
CE2 is a licensed Alaskan business, as is each of our project team subconsultants. CE2
can and will furnish evidence of satisfactory Workmen’s Compensation, Public Liability
and Property Damage, and Automobile Liability insurance on request.
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE 3
I NTRODUCTION OF CE2’S P ROJECT T EAM
CE2’s project team is composed of qualified individuals with a broad range of
experience in management of rural Alaska force account construction projects.
Brian Aklin is the Program Manager for key clients, and oversees a handful of our
larger energy projects. With over 30 years of construction experience, Brian has been a
field hand, equipment operator, foreman, and field superintendent. He has provided
both on- and off-site management of force account construction for bulk fuel and
sanitation projects throughout rural Alaska. Brian performs all aspects of construction
management: constructability reviews, cost estimating, procurement, scheduling, and
site supervision. He has gained a keen understanding of the unique challenges of rural
construction including environmental, procurement and logistics, and personnel issues.
Brian is the program manager for CE2’s contract with the AEA’s Rural Energy Group
(AEA/REG) for bulk fuel and rural power system upgrade projects in rural Alaska, and
for a similar bulk fuel contract with AVEC.
Brian’s leadership and thorough knowledge of construction techniques, personnel
supervision, and cost analysis enables CE2 to achieve timely results and cooperation
within rural communities. He has managed force account construction for nearly $55
million dollars of bulk fuel, power plant and power upgrade, sanitation, and road,
projects in Akiachak, Brevig Mission, Chefornak, Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, Cold
Bay, Gambell, Hooper Bay, Hughes, Huslia, Kokhanok, Mountain Village, Nelson
Lagoon, Nikolski, Noatak, Nome, Pelican, Seldovia, Sleetmute, St. Mary’s, Tenakee
Springs, and Tuluksak.
CE2’s other in-house team members include:
Senior Design Engineer: Paul Weisner, PE. Paul brings a wealth of knowledge and
experience to the project. Paul has 28 years of arctic facilities management, planning,
and design experience in rural Alaska. Paul combines a solid engineering education:
Bachelor of Science (Civil Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley) with
hands-on field experience in the design and operation of infrastructure and energy
systems ranging from water treatment plants and water storage to bulk fuel storage.
Paul also has experience using waste heat from power generation and has delved into
wood heat as an alternate energy source.
Project Manager: David Harvey. David brings over 23 years of construction
experience to the CE2 team. He has been on site superintendent or project manager
for over 11 years, and has five years of Bush Alaska experience in project planning,
logistics, and construction. David is experienced in all aspects of construction and force
account management, and is able to effectively and efficiently manage simultaneous
projects. He combines his field and technical experience with proficiency in material
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE 4
take-offs and project controls, including cost estimating using Microsoft Excel, and
scheduling in Microsoft Project. David was project manager for both the Brevig Mission
Bulk Fuel Upgrade and the Kalskag Bulk Fuel Upgrade, the Savoonga Bering Straits
School District fuel facility containment cell at Savoonga, projects. Both were multi-year
force account construction projects that included bulk fuel storage and dispensing
facilities.
Project Manager: Walton Smith. Walton has over 20 years of rural Alaska planning
and on- and off-site force account construction management experience. Walton’s
background in management of utility services is a valuable resource for his project
management activities. Walton is responsible for preparation of Site Specific Safety
Plans for all CE2 projects. Walton is currently leading the Akiachak Water and Sewer
project, which includes overseeing up to three site superintendents on the force account
construction of water and sewer main lines, services, and in-house plumbing upgrades.
He also coordinated the effort to bring the Akiachak water treatment plant, which CE2
constructed in 1999, back on line, by assisting the community with Rural Utility Business
Advisor (RUBA) compliance. His strength is in achieving results in rural communities.
Site Superintendent: Judd Sterling. Judd Sterling has been with CE2 as a Site
Superintendent for six years, primarily on AEA energy and VSW water and sewer
projects. Judd is thoroughly versed in CE2’s force account construction management
system. He has provided exemplary site supervision on bulk fuel, rural power system
upgrades, water and sewer, and other community force account projects in Brevig
Mission, Emmonak, Igiugig, Pelican, and Tenakee Springs. Judd is very familiar with the
Whitestone Community Association, as he was the on-site superintendent for their bulk
fuel storage upgrade which was completed in September 2005.
Site Superintendent: Mike West. Mike has 27 years of experience in the construction
field and has managed field crews on rural sanitation projects for CE2 for the last eight
years. His broad knowledge of all aspects of rural construction projects (logistics,
materials, construction methods, and supply management) has been applied to bulk
fuel, power upgrades, and water and sewer system construction. Mike has provided his
top level of site supervision on bulk fuel force account construction projects in
Unalakleet and Pelican; and water and sewer system construction in Akiachak, Brevig
Mission, Hooper Bay, Mountain Village, and, Sleetmute.
Site Superintendent: Daryl Ramstad. Daryl’s welding experience spans 31 years,
13 of those in rural communities and remote jobsites. His work experience includes
generator installation, tank farm installation, tank decommissioning, pipe welding, and
quality control inspection. Daryl has been a Site Superintendent with CE2 since 2007,
and has worked in Seldovia, Gambell, Savoonga, and King Cove in bulk fuel and rural
power plant installations.
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE 5
S PECIFIC C ONSTRUCTION M ANAGEMENT/SUPERVISION E XPERIENCE
CE2 has extensive experience in energy projects. The table below details many, but
not all, of our projects. All projects detailed utilized force account construction
management and supervision.
Project Title/
Year/Client Project Description Team Members
Atka Bulk Fuel
Project
2004-05
Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA)
Installation of a dual product marine header and
buried fill pipelines, gravel fill foundation pad with
timber dike secondary containment, ten 20,000-
gallon single wall horizontal, above ground fuel
storage tanks with piping and appurtenances, a bulk
fuel transfer secondary containment area and retail
sales dispenser, a 5,000-gallon double wall storage
tank for the new power plant, and a 1,200 gallon
double wall storage tank at the School.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Jon Ross,
Superintendent
Chefornak Power
System Upgrade
2006
AEA
Upgraded and relocated the power generation
facility. Constructed a new 35’ x 50’ thermopile-
supported power plant; installed one 27,000-gallon
fuel tank for the power plant, two 370kW generators
and one 180kW generator. The project includes
waste heat recovery to the community water
system.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Jon Ross,
Superintendent
Chignik Bay
Power Plant
Ongoing
AEA
The project installed a skid mounted modular power
plant. The plant was fabricated in Anchorage,
shipped to Chignik, and set in place.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager
Gambell Bulk
Fuel
2004-06
AVEC
This was a community-wide project that consisted of
a new School District/West fuel facility consisting of
installation of two 22,500-gallon horizontal tanks,
and a new 3” buried cargo line connection; a new 3”
buried cargo line installed from the barge landing
site to the Gambell Native Store; installation of three
26,300-gallon horizontal tanks and six 27,000-gallon
horizontal tanks in a new containment area,
expansion of the existing lot to accommodate the
new tanks, proper diking, liner, fencing, and lighting
at the AVEC East Tank Farm Facility; installation of
a 4” welded steel buried pipeline from the barge
landing site to the AVEC, K-12 School, and City
tank facilities; installation of a 3” buried pipeline
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE 6
Project Title/
Year/Client Project Description Team Members
from the AVEC 4” pipeline to the existing three
15,000 gallon horizontal tanks at the water plant.
Kokhanok Bulk
Fuel & Power
Plant
2003
AEA
The project combined all power generation into a
single new power plant. This included installation of
new 3 ph overhead distribution line between the
new power plant, the school, and the existing power
plant; and upgrade and consolidation of the existing
fuel storage and handling facilities. The new tank
farm consists of four new 20,000-gallon horizontal
skid-mounted storage tanks, two 4,000-gallon
horizontal skid mounted dispensing tanks, a truck
loading area and dual product dispensing station.
The project had a waste heat recovery system
component.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Jon Ross,
Superintendent
King Cove Bulk
Fuel and Power
Plant System
Upgrade
2007-2008
AEA
Upgrade the existing fuel storage and handling
facilities; the project provided bulk storage for City
diesel fuel. Installed five 29,500-gallon skit
mounted bulk fuel tanks and a truck load-out
system. The existing bulk storage tanks at the City
tank farm were disconnected from piping, drained of
product, blind flanged, and taken out of service.
The Power system upgrade constructed a new 40’
by 74’ slab on grade metal building; installed a new
1050 kW genset,a 600 kW genset, and two 475 kW
gensets. Installed a 12,000-gallon skid mounted
fuel tank and a waste heat recovery system to the
School.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager
Nanwalek Bulk
Fuel Project
2004
AEA
The project provided the village of Nanwalek with a
code-compliant fuel storage and handling facility,
and consolidated fuel storage. The new facility
includes a diesel bulk storage tank, a gasoline-
dispensing tank, a bulk transfer (truck loading) area,
and a gasoline dispenser.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Bob
Zeitler, Site
Superintendent
Nelson Lagoon
Bulk Fuel Project
2004
AEA
Replaced the existing Nelson Lagoon facility with a
code compliant fuel storage facility containing
storage for all unleaded gasoline, aviation gasoline,
#1 diesel fuel oil and #2 diesel fuel oil required for
retail sales and generation of electrical power.
Installed nine 27,000-gallon storage tanks within a
diked area with drainage trenches and drain pipes;
three 4,000-gallon dispensing tanks, one 4,000-
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE 7
Project Title/
Year/Client Project Description Team Members
gallon intermediate tank, single and double product
dispensing units, a truck-loading dispensing unit
with a concrete containment area and an oil/water
separator and spill catchment, marine headers,
associated piping and pumps, and electrical
systems, including monitoring and control features.
Pedro Bay Bulk
Fuel and Rural
Power System
Upgrade Project
2004
AEA
The project provided the village of Pedro Bay with a
code-compliant fuel storage and handling facility,
and included work at the school site. The new
facility includes three diesel bulk storage tanks, a
gasoline dispensing tank, a bulk transfer (Truck
Loading) area, and a gasoline dispenser. The
school facility includes two bulk storage tanks and a
new surface flow containment slab/dike. The power
plant upgrade consisted of an addition to the
existing power plant and a waste heat recovery
system to the School.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Jon Ross,
Site Superintendent
Pelican Bulk Fuel
and Rural Power
System Upgrade
2007
AEA
Upgraded bulk storage for all diesel fuel and
gasoline imported into the community for power
generation, public and residential heating, and
marine transfers. The project included preparation
of a pad area and setting three 20,000-gallon and
one 12,000-gallon bulk fuel storage tanks, and a
marine fueling station. The project provided a new
power generation facility consisting of a 16’ x 42’
modular power generation building, two 370kW
generators and one 180kW generator. The modular
power building was assembled on-site at CE2’s
Anchorage facility and shipped to Pelican.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Judd
Sterling, Site
Superintendent
Pilot Point Bulk
Fuel Project
2008 - Ongoing
AEA
This project upgrades the existing fuel storage and
handling facilities at a tank farm and dispensing
facility. The tank farm facility will provide bulk
storage for the majority of the diesel fuel, gasoline,
and avgas in the community. Fuel will be loaded
into a tanker truck or portable tanks at this facility
and hauled to the dispensing site or the consumer’s
tanks.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Daryl
Ramstad, Site
Superintendent
Seldovia Bulk
Fuel Project
2007
AEA
The project upgraded the existing Seldovia fuel
storage and handling facilities at three sites: the
existing tank farm, Seldovia Lube and Fuel resale
and truck loading area, and the City dock. The tank
farm bulk storage tanks are vertical single wall
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Bob
Zeitler, Site
Superintendent
CE2 ENGINEERS, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PREPARED FOR: WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PAGE 8
Project Title/
Year/Client Project Description Team Members
construction. The three-product (gasoline, #1
Diesel, and #2 Diesel) dispensing tank is of double-
wall two-hour fire rated construction with overfill
protection. The existing bulk storage tanks were
disconnected from piping, drained of product,
cleaned, cut into small sections and removed from
the existing containment in accordance with current
AEA policy and applicable state and federal
regulations.
Tenakee Springs
Bulk Fuel and
Rural Power
System Upgrade
2007
AEA
The project included a two-acre gravel pad for the
co-joined bulk fuel storage facility and power plant
modules; completion of a 3,127 LF road, 220 LF of
stairs at a 30% slope, and a french drain for site
dewatering. The new modular power generation
equipment consists of two 88kW diesel-electric
gensets and one 64kW diesel-electric genset with
automated transfer switchgear. The existing bulk
storage tanks were disconnected from piping,
drained of product, blind flanged, and
decommissioned in accordance with current AEA
policy and applicable state and federal regulations.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Judd
Sterling, Site
Superintendent
Whitestone Bulk
Fuel Upgrade
2005
AEA
The project upgraded the existing Community of
Whitestone fuel storage and handling facilities, and
added a 3,200 lineal foot single-phase power
distribution extension to the new Bulk Fuel Storage
facility.
The new community tank farm consists of a new
gravel pad and lined containment area with six new
25,000-gallon horizontal skid-mounted single- wall
storage tanks for diesel fuel. The new bulk fuel
transfer station has a 4,500-gallon capacity
secondary containment area for commercial fuel
delivery trucks. Fuel dispensing is provided with one
new 10,000-gallon horizontal double-wall dual-
product tank for #1 diesel and unleaded gasoline,
which is located adjacent to the equipment storage
area. Fuel is delivered to the bulk facility during the
winter via commercial truck over a seasonal ice
road.
Brian Aklin, Program
Manager; Judd
Sterling, Site
Superintendent
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
October 2008
PO Box 1473
29824 Birdie Haven Court
Sterling, AK 99672-1473
Tel: (907) 260-6341
E-mail: ping@aquacoustics.com
Aquacoustics, Inc. is a consulting business specializing in the field of fisheries acoustics
and GIS.
Aquacoustics is a North Carolina S Corporation founded in January 1996, with 100
percent of the outstanding shares owned by its president, Donald J. Degan.
Aquacoustics received an Alaska business license, Number 266225, and a Certificate of
Authority from the State of Alaska in January 2000 to transact business under the name
of Aquacoustics, Inc. Our office is currently located in Sterling, Alaska.
We provide fisheries acoustics expertise to government agencies and private industry in
support of regulatory compliance and fish population studies. Our staff has 44 years of
experience in the field of fisheries, 33 years of experience in hydroacoustics.
We provide consulting services in the field of fisheries acoustics. We use sonar
technology to estimate the number or biomass of fish, or to study fish behavior,
distribution and habitat. Sonar is a non-invasive method that can be used in water too
turbid for video; can be automated and, when used appropriately, provide reliable data
economically.
Common applications are fish stock assessment, monitoring fish behavior at
hydroelectric dams or other man-made structures, or mapping bathymetry and substrate
type.
Our services cover:
• project design
• project management
• data collection
• acoustic data processing and analysis
• (fish tracking, echo integration, substrate typing,
1
• bathymetric data analysis)
• mapping and spatial analysis
• training
Our clients come from private industry, government agencies, universities and native
organizations. They include fisheries biologists who are interested in using sonar
technology but need help with selecting suitable equipment, sampling sites, survey design
and data analysis; and power companies that need to monitor fish entrainment or prove
the effectiveness of by-pass structures.
We work with several different manufacturers and software companies, including
SoundMetrics (DIDSON), OceanMarine (DIDSON), Simrad, BioSonics, SonarData
(EchoView®)and Pacific Eumetrics (image processing, target tracking and
classification).
2
Clients
• Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, AL
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, AK
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, AK
• BioSonics, Inc., Seattle, WA
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada
• Devine Tarbell & Associates, Charlotte, NC
• Duke Engineering Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC
• Duke Energy, Charlotte, NC
• Georgia Department of Natural Resources, GA
• GeoSyntec Consultants, Atlanta, GA
• Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, GA
• Gulf South Research Corp., Baton Rouge, LA
• HDR Environmental, Anchorage, AK
• Iowa State Cooperative Fisheries Unit, Ames, IA
• Kleinschmidt Energy & Water Resource Consultants, Pittsfield, ME
• Lakeside Engineering, Inc., Mirror Lake, NH
• LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK
• LGL Limited, Sidney, BC, Canada
• Madison Paper Industries, Madison, ME
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MN
• Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO
• Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, Miss. State University, MS
• National Park Service, Lake Clark National Park, AK
• New York Power Authority, NY
3
• NOAA - Fisheries, Maine Field Station, Orono, ME
• North Carolina State Cooperative Fisheries Unit, Raleigh, NC
• Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, OK
• Ohio Division of Wildlife, OH
• Ohio State University, Applied Ecology Lab, OH
• Portland District COE, Portland, OR
• Public Service Electric and Gas, Hancocks Bridge, NJ
• Rock Island District COE, Rock Island, IL
• Savannah River District COE, Savannah, GA
• Scientific Fishery Systems, Inc., Anchorage, AK
• South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, SC
• St. Louis District COE, St. Louis, MO
• The River Alliance of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
• US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS
• USGS Biological Services, S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, MA
• Verdant Power, Davidsonville, MD
• Virginia Commonwealth University, VA
• Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, VA
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
Whitestone Community Association Renewable Energy Grant Fund Application Attachments
Attachment B:
AEA Application Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1
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. Over 500kW of extractable hydrokinetic power is
estimated to be available from the Tanana River
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 Two diesel-powered generators
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 250kW each, for a total of 500 kW
iii. Generator/boilers/other type
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other Installed in 2008, running now
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 40% (estimated, includes thermodynamic and
generator losses)
b) Annual O&M cost
i. Annual O&M cost for labor Sunk cost – maintenance duties using existing staff
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $3,000
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 666,078 kWh (2007 data)
ii. Fuel usage (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank
Diesel [gal] 57,000 gal. (2007 data)
Other Emergency Back Up 10,000 gal.
iii. Peak Load 160 kw
iv. Average Load 110 kw
v. Minimum Load 75 kw
vi. Efficiency 46%
vii. Future trends 1. GVEA intertie anticipated in 2009
2. 5% annual increase in power consumption expected
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 70,000 gal.
ii. Electricity [kWh] 666,078 kWh
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 21,000 gal.
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] 100 Cords
vi. Other (Note: above are 2007 data)
3. Proposed System Design
a) Installed capacity Pilot Plant
24kW
Expanded Plant
79kW
Total
103 kW
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] N/A
ii. Electricity [kWh] 122,640 kWh 403,690 kWh 526,330 kWh
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] N/A
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] N/A
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] N/A
vi. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $ 3,965,660. (through construction)
b) Development cost $ 885,745. (engineering/enviro/permitting)
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $ 22,351.
d) Annual fuel cost N/A
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel
c) Other economic benefits Electricity savings in the lower cost per kWh from local
production of hydrokinetic power
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits 1. Proving RISEC technology through the successful
harvesting of hydrokinetic energy from a plentiful,
locally available renewable resource.
2. Decreasing Fossil Fuel Dependency, and
3. Reducing Carbon Emissions.
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale N/A (unless WCA were to sell power in the future to
GVEA; their current purchase rate is $.05/kWh)
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio .23 in 10 years, .43 in 15 years, .67 in 20 years, 1.01 in 26 years *
* based on these assumptions: 2.5% inflation, 5% electricity
consumption, 3.7% GVEA increase, 8% diesel fuel
Payback Initial savings with the Pilot Plant are estimated at $19,740 annually,
which jumps to over $109,800 annually with the installation of the
Expanded Plant.
A conservative analysis with inflation-adjusted savings projects a
payback period of 26 years. For additional detail refer to the
Preliminary Value Analysis Worksheet provided in Attachment H.
Whitestone Community Association Renewable Energy Grant Fund Application Attachments
Attachment C:
Grant Budget Form
Alaska Energy Authority ‐ Renewable Energy FundBUDGET INFORMATIONBUDGET SUMMARY:Milestone or Task Federal Funds State FundsLocal Match Funds (Cash)Local Match Funds (In‐Kind)Other FundsTOTALSTask 1 ‐Phase III ‐ Part 1 Pilot Plant Design$543,444 $25,000 $568,444Task 2 ‐Phase IV ‐ Part 1 Pilot Plant Construction$1,248,598 $15,000 $1,263,598Task 3 ‐ Phase III ‐ Part 2 Expanded Plant Design$307,301 $25,000 $332,301Task 4 ‐ Phase IV ‐ Part 2 Expanded Plant Construction$1,781,317 $20,000 $1,801,317$0$0 $3,880,660 $0 $50,000 $35,000 $3,965,660TASKBUDGET CATEGORIES:1Pilot Plant Design2Pilot Plant Construction3Expanded Plant Design4Expanded Plant Construction TOTALSDirect Labor and Benefits $25,000 $25,000 $50,000Travel, Meals, or Per Diem $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $5,000 $15,000Equipment $159,881 $63,952 $223,833Supplies $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000Contractual Services $535,944 $299,801 $835,745Construction Services $1,093,717 $1,727,365 $2,821,082Other Direct Costs$0TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES $568,444 $1,263,598 $332,301 $1,801,317 $0 $3,965,660RFA AEA09‐004 Budget Form
Whitestone Community Association Renewable Energy Grant Fund Application Attachments
Attachment D:
Electronic Copy of Application
Whitestone Community Association Renewable Energy Grant Fund Application Attachments
Attachment E:
Governing Body Resolution
Whitestone Community Association Renewable Energy Grant Fund Application Attachments
Attachment F:
Preliminary Capital Cost Summary
Whitestone Community Association
Preliminary Cost Summary
Tanana River Hydrokinetic Project
WCA Hydrokinetic Project
24kW
Pilot Plant
79kW
Expansion 103 kW
PHASE III - FINAL DESIGN/PERMITTING
Engineering 123,417 144,215 267,632
Surveying 15,000 10,000 25,000
Fish Studies 187,240 74,980 262,220
Hydrologist 185,287 45,606 230,893
Environmental/permitting 50,000 50,000 100,000
Subtotal - Phase III 560,944 324,801 885,745
PHASE IV - CONSTRUCTION
Capital cost (from EPRI) 314,800 944,400 1,259,200
Mooring 50,000 125,000 175,000
Deployment 20,000 50,000 70,000
Electrical Subcontractor 500,000 250,000 750,000
Equipment 159,881 63,952 223,833
Supplies 10,000 10,000 20,000
Local labor 36,000 90,000 126,000
Travel, meals, per diem 7,500 7,500 15,000
Site Superintendent 49,500 123,750 173,250
Construction Management 123,417 144,215 267,632
Subtotal - Phase IV 1,271,098 1,808,817 3,079,915
Project Total 1,832,042$ 2,133,618$
3,965,660$ Overall Project Total
WCA capital cost est.xls Page 1 of 1 Printed: 11/9/2008
Whitestone Community Association Renewable Energy Grant Fund Application Attachments
Attachment G:
Preliminary Value Analysis Worksheet
Whitestone Community AssociationTanana River Hydrokinetic Project Delta, Alaska CONSERVATIVEDate(Revision Date): November 6, 2008 **PRELIMINARY**PRELIMINARY VALUE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETPOWER PLANT GENERATION COSTSFuel Type Fuel OilCurrent Annual Fuel Cost (August 2008) 3.50 per galAnnual Average Fuel Usage 52,000 galsAnnual Generator Fuel Costs $182,000Annual O&M Costs $4,500 sunk costEXISTING POWER COSTSGIVEN PARAMETERSGVEA G-2 commercial power rate*0.22$ kWh 2008 rateAnnual adjustments:Estimated annual power consumption**699,382 kWhCost of living2.5%*GVEA intertie planned for 2009Electricity cost3.7%**estimate based on 2007 consumption with 5% increase Electricity Consumption5.0%Diesel Fuel cost increase 8.0%HYDROKINETIC SYSTEMAnnual electricity production - Pilot Plant122,640 kWhAnnual electricity production - Expanded Plant403,690 kWhEstimated annual O&M costs - Pilot Plant$9,000Estimated annual O&M costs - Expanded Plant$13,351Hydrokinetic power production cost - Pilot Plant$0.073Hydrokinetic power production cost - Expanded Plant$0.033Notes:1. Assumes GVEA intertie in 2009, with 2008 rate of $.22 kWh and 3.7% annual increasePROJECT CAPITAL COST$3,965,6602. Assumes annual rate adjustments as identified above in Given Parameters.Local Match (Cash, In-kind, Other)$85,0003. Assumes Pilot Plant installation in 2010, Expanded Plant buildout in 2012GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED$3,880,6604. Assumes operational period of 7 months each year.Payback with inflation-adjusted savings:26 Years2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2023 2028 2033 2034 203520362037 2038Cash Flow DescriptionUnit CostsUsage (%)Annual Volume Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30Current Annual Electrical costs (GVEA-connected) Annual Electrical consumption$0.23 100% 699,382 kWh $159,557 $173,438 $188,528 $204,929 $222,758 $242,138 $263,204 $286,103 $310,994 $338,051 $513,014 $778,533 $1,181,476 $1,284,264 $1,395,995 $1,517,447 $1,649,465 $1,792,968Subtotal - Current annual power costs$159,557 $173,438 $188,528 $204,929 $222,758 $242,138 $263,204 $286,103 $310,994 $338,051 $513,014 $778,533 $1,181,476 $1,284,264 $1,395,995 $1,517,447 $1,649,465 $1,792,968GVEA connected cost per kWh$0.23 $0.24 $0.24 $0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.37 $0.44 $0.52 $0.54 $0.56 $0.58 $0.60 $0.62Hydrokinetic System Operating CostsO&M Costs - Pilot Plant$9,000 100%1 yr$0 $9,225 $9,456 $9,692 $9,934 $10,183 $10,437 $10,698 $10,966 $11,240 $12,717 $14,388 $16,279 $16,685 $17,103 $17,530 $17,968 $18,418O&M Costs - Expanded Plant$13,351 100%1 yr$0$0$0 $13,685 $14,027 $14,378 $14,737 $15,105 $15,483 $15,870 $17,956 $20,315 $22,985 $23,559 $24,148 $24,752 $25,371 $26,005Total Hydrokinetic System Operating Costs$0 $9,225 $9,456 $23,377 $23,961 $24,560 $25,174 $25,804 $26,449 $27,110 $30,672 $34,703 $39,263 $40,245 $41,251 $42,282 $43,339 $44,423Hydrokinetic power production cost - Pilot Plant$0.0734122640 kWh0 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640 122640Hydrokinetic power production cost - Expanded Plant$0.0331403690 kWh000 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690 403690Total Hydrokinetic Production kWh0 122640 122640 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330 526330WCA Hydrokinetic Cost per kWh$0 $0.0752 $0.0771 $0.0444 $0.0455 $0.0467 $0.0478 $0.0490 $0.0503 $0.0515 $0.0583 $0.0659 $0.0746 $0.0765 $0.0784 $0.0803 $0.0823 $0.0844Annual Operating Cost Savings$19,740 $20,530 $109,847 $113,957 $118,218 $122,635 $127,214 $131,961 $136,882 $164,322 $197,156 $236,430 $245,163 $254,214 $263,594 $273,316 $283,391Savings Percent0.0% 68.2% 68.5% 82.5% 82.6% 82.8% 83.0% 83.1% 83.3% 83.5% 84.3% 85.0% 85.8% 85.9% 86.0% 86.2% 86.3% 86.4%Cumulative Savings-$ 19,740$ 40,270$ 150,117$ 264,073$ 382,291$ 504,926$ 632,140$ 764,101$ 900,982$ 1,665,743$ 2,583,503$ 3,684,295$ 3,929,458$ 4,183,672$ 4,447,266$ 4,720,582$ 5,003,972$ Benefit /Cost Ratio0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.42 0.65 0.93 0.991.081.151.221.29**ESTIMATE**Analysis with Conservative 7mos ops annual cost increase
Whitestone Community AssociationOPTIMALTanana River Hydrokinetic Project Delta, Alaska Date(Revision Date): November 6, 2008 **PRELIMINARY**PRELIMINARY VALUE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETPOWER PLANT GENERATION COSTSFuel Type Fuel OilCurrent Annual Fuel Cost (August 2008) 3.50 per galAnnual Average Fuel Usage 52,000 galsAnnual Generator Fuel Costs $182,000Annual O&M Costs $4,500 sunk costEXISTING POWER COSTSGIVEN PARAMETERSGVEA G-2 commercial power rate*0.22$ kWh 2008 rateAnnual adjustments:Estimated annual power consumption**699,382 kWhCost of living2.5%*GVEA intertie planned for 2009Electricity cost3.7%**estimate based on 2007 consumption with 5% increase Electricity Consumption5.0%Diesel Fuel cost increase 8.0%HYDROKINETIC SYSTEMAnnual electricity production - Pilot Plant140,160 kWhAnnual electricity production - Expanded Plant461,360 kWhEstimated annual O&M costs - Pilot Plant$9,000Estimated annual O&M costs - Expanded Plant$13,351Hydrokinetic power production cost - Pilot Plant$0.064Hydrokinetic power production cost - Expanded Plant$0.029Notes:1. Assumes GVEA intertie in 2009, with 2008 rate of $.22 kWh and 3.7% annual increasePROJECT CAPITAL COST$3,965,6602. Assumes annual rate adjustments as identified above in Given Parameters.Local Match (Cash, In-kind, Other)$85,0003. Assumes Pilot Plant installation in 2010, Expanded Plant buildout in 2012GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED$3,880,6604. Assumes operational period of 8 months each year.Payback with inflation-adjusted savings:24 Years2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2023 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034Cash Flow DescriptionUnit CostsUsage (%)Annual Volume Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26Current Annual Electrical costs (GVEA-connected) Annual Electrical consumption$0.23 100% 699,382 kWh $159,557 $173,438 $188,528 $204,929 $222,758 $242,138 $263,204 $286,103 $310,994 $338,051 $513,014 $778,533 $846,266 $919,891 $999,921 $1,086,914 $1,181,476 $1,284,264Subtotal - Current annual power costs$159,557 $173,438 $188,528 $204,929 $222,758 $242,138 $263,204 $286,103 $310,994 $338,051 $513,014 $778,533 $846,266 $919,891 $999,921 $1,086,914 $1,181,476 $1,284,264GVEA connected cost per kWh$0.23 $0.24 $0.24 $0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.37 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 $0.49 $0.51 $0.52 $0.54Hydrokinetic System Operating CostsO&M Costs - Pilot Plant$9,000 100%1 yr$0 $9,225 $9,456 $9,692 $9,934 $10,183 $10,437 $10,698 $10,966 $11,240 $12,717 $14,388 $14,748 $15,116 $15,494 $15,881 $16,279 $16,685O&M Costs - Expanded Plant$13,351 100%1 yr$0$0$0 $13,685 $14,027 $14,378 $14,737 $15,105 $15,483 $15,870 $17,956 $20,315 $20,823 $21,344 $21,877 $22,424 $22,985 $23,559Total Hydrokinetic System Operating Costs$0 $9,225 $9,456 $23,377 $23,961 $24,560 $25,174 $25,804 $26,449 $27,110 $30,672 $34,703 $35,571 $36,460 $37,371 $38,306 $39,263 $40,245Hydrokinetic power production cost - Pilot Plant$0.0642140160 kWh0 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160 140160Hydrokinetic power production cost - Expanded Plant$0.0289461360 kWh000 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360 461360Total Hydrokinetic Production kWh0 140160 140160 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520 601520WCA Hydrokinetic Cost per kWh$0 $0.0658 $0.0675 $0.0389 $0.0398 $0.0408 $0.0419 $0.0429 $0.0440 $0.0451 $0.0510 $0.0577 $0.0591 $0.0606 $0.0621 $0.0637 $0.0653 $0.0669Annual Operating Cost Savings$23,878 $24,814 $128,878 $133,659 $138,614 $143,750 $149,074 $154,591 $160,309 $192,179 $230,279 $238,749 $247,526 $256,622 $266,047 $275,814 $285,935Savings Percent0.0% 72.1% 72.4% 84.6% 84.8% 84.9% 85.1% 85.2% 85.4% 85.5% 86.2% 86.9% 87.0% 87.2% 87.3% 87.4% 87.5% 87.7%Cumulative Savings-$ 23,878$ 48,692$ 177,570$ 311,229$ 449,844$ 593,594$ 742,668$ 897,259$ 1,057,568$ 1,952,445$ 3,024,922$ 3,263,671$ 3,511,197$ 3,767,819$ 4,033,866$ 4,309,680$ 4,595,615$ Benefit /Cost Ratio0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.49 0.76 0.82 0.89 0.95 1.02 1.09 1.16**ESTIMATE**Analysis with Optimal 8mos ops annual cost increase