HomeMy WebLinkAboutChugach School District Alternative Energy Feasibilty App
Application for
Alaska Energy Authority
Renewable Energy Fund Grant
Reconnaissance and Feasibility Phases
submitted on
November 10, 2008
Authorizing Resolution
by
Chugach School District School Board
Revised 07/01
Chugach School District
MEMORANDUM #09-17 AGENDA ITEM # 9.11(C)
DATE: October 24, 2008
TITLE:
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
BACKGROUND:
By this resolution, we the undersigned members of the Chugach School Board, authorize
and approve the attached application for a Reconnaissance Study and Feasibility/Concept
Design Study related to our district facilities.
9.11.c MEMO #09-17 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Moved by Member Bender, seconded by Member Vlasoff to approved Memo
#09-17 as presented. Approved to submit application for Reconnaissance Study
and Feasibility/Concept Design Study related to district facilities.
Voice Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays, passed unanimously.
SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Chugach School Board approve the Memo #09-17.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 15 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 15 9/3/2008
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Chugach School District
Type of Entity:
Public School District
Mailing Address
9312 Vanguard Drive, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99507
Physical Address
Same
Telephone
907-522-7400
Fax
907-522-3399
Email
bcrumley@chugachschools.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Dr. Robert Crumley
Title
Superintendent
Mailing Address
9312 Vanguard Drive, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone
907-522-7400
Fax
907-522-3399
Email
bcrumley@chugachschools.com
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 15 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.
The purpose of this proposal is to conduct both a reconnaissance and subsequent feasibility
study. Use of CNG, hydro, wind, solar, and tidal power will all be considered, in addition to
results of the Alaska Energy Authority Regional Economic Wind Development screening that
showed the availability of class 7 wind in Tatitlek with the possibility of meeting all of the
school energy needs.
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.
This proposal is to conduct a reconnaissance and feasibility study for alternative energy use
for the school facilities in the communities of Whittier, Chenega Bay, and Tatitlek operated
by Chugach School District. Development of sustainable alternative energy is a School
Board objective in Chugach School District where fuel costs consume an escalating
proportion of the annual budget, detracting from the primary mission of education. Chugach
School District has been an education leader and model for other rural Alaska school
districts for over 15 years and now wants to be one of the first to create a solution to a
problem plaguing rural Alaska. A description of each communities is included here.
Whittier Chenega Bay Community School
Chenega Bay is located on Evans Island at Crab Bay, 42 miles southeast of Whittier in
Prince William Sound. It is 104 air miles southeast of Anchorage and 50 miles east of
Seward. The area encompasses 28.8 sq. miles of land and .3 sq. miles of water. Winter
temperatures range from 17 to 28; summer temperatures range 49 to 63. Average annual
precipitation includes 66 inches of rain and 80 inches of snowfall. The village was destroyed
and over half of all residents perished by tsunamis in the Sound after the 1964 earthquake.
The village was reestablished twenty years later on Evans Island, at the site of the former
Crab Bay herring saltery. In the summer of 1984, 21 homes, an office building, community
hall, school, 2 teacher's houses, a church and community store were constructed. Chenega
Bay is an Aluti’iq Native community where most residents practice a subsistence lifestyle.
The Chenega School is a 6,000 square foot facility.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 15 9/3/2008
Tatitlek is located on the northeast shore of Tatitlek Narrows, on the Alaska Mainland in
Prince William Sound. It lies 30 miles east of Valdez by sea near Bligh Island, and 30 air
miles northwest of Cordova. The area encompasses 7.3 sq. miles of land and 0 sq. miles of
water. Winter temperatures range from 17 to 28; summers average 49 to 63. Annual
precipitation includes 28 inches of rain and 150 inches of snowfall. Fish processing and
oyster farming provide some employment in Tatitlek. A dam provides water, which is
treated and stored in a 170,000-gallon tank. A piped water and sewer system serves all 34
homes. The piped community septic tank system discharges via an ocean outfall. The
Tatitlek School is 9,500 square feet.
Whittier is on the northeast shore of the Kenai Peninsula, at the head of Passage Canal. It
is on the west side of Prince William Sound, 75 miles southeast of Anchorage. The area
encompasses 12.5 sq. miles of land and 7.2 sq. miles of water. Winter temperatures range
from 17 to 28; summer temperatures average 49 to 63. Average annual precipitation
includes 66 inches of rain and 80 inches of snowfall. The major employers in Whittier are
the City and Crowley Maritime. Water is derived from wells and a reservoir. Water storage
capacity is 1.2 million gallons. The entire community is served by a piped water and sewer
system, and over 95% of homes are fully plumbed. The Whittier Community School is a
21,000 sf facility.
This project will be managed by Chugach School District with expertise contracted for both
the reconnaissance and feasibility phases. The qualifications of the contractors are discussed
under Section 3.4 of this proposal.
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.
Total project cost for the reconnaissance phase is estimated to be $995,999.64. Total cost
for the feasibility phase is $384,439.36, for a grand total request of $1,380,439.00 for the
two phases. Chugach School District is a public school district with two funding streams: the
state foundation formula for allocating resources to schools based on student enrollment
and other grant sources. The Chugach School Board and administrators are committed to
seeking funding through construction for this initiative, and the results of these two phases
will guide later decision making.
Project costs are provided for individual activities to complete the work and summarized by
major milestones (attached).
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.
Project benefits include vastly increasing the knowledge base regarding the conditions
affecting alternative energy use in Tatitlek, Chenega Bay and Whittier through data
collection and analysis. Should these efforts indicate alternative energy solutions are
potentially viable in the areas under study, the ensuing project development could yield cost
savings for the Chugach School District (and others in the immediate area) by displacing
use of diesel fuel. The secondary benefits of reducing use of diesel fuel include reduced
noxious emissions, reduced carbon-dioxide release, mitigation of risks of liquid fuel spills,
less disruption of important land and marine habitats and improved quality of life. Should
alternative energy projects prove to be economically attractive and provide reasonable
returns on investment, the use of cheaper energy could possibly form the core factor for
increased economic development in these communities.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 15 9/3/2008
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.)
$1,380,439.00
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $1,380,439.00
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $0
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $1,380,439.00
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) $
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.)
$
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 15 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 indicat e 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.
The Project Manager for this project is Ryan Schmidt, a Chugach School District employee
and the individual with responsibility for management of all district facilities. Mr. Schmidt’s
responsibilities include management and reporting of all capital improvement projects per
State of Alaska regulations for school districts.
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 detailed project schedule is attached. The Reconnaissance Phase is scheduled to take 349
days to complete, from 1/9/09 to 6/23/10. The Feasibility Phase is scheduled to take 107
days to complete, beginning on 6/23/10 with completion by 11/18/10.
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
There are 10 key milestones in the completion of the two phases of this proposal, 7 for the
reconnaissance phase and 3 for the feasibility phase listed below along with their timeframe
to complete. A detailed project timeline is attached.
Milestone Dates Number of Days
Reconnaissance 349
1. Preparation for fieldwork 1/9/09 – 3/1/09 36
2. Data collection period #1 3/2/09 – 6/15/09 101
3. Data collection period #2 6/16/09 – 9/15/09 90
4. Data collection period #3 9/16/09 – 12/15/09 90
5. Data collection period #4 12/16/09 – 3/24/10 96
6. Determination of possible sites 3/25/10 – 4/30/10 32
7. Reconnaissance completed 5/3/10 – 6/23/10 38
Feasibility 107
8. Goals and schedule established 6/23/10 – 7/2/10 9
9. Review of design and schematics 7/7/10 – 8/20/10 63
10. Resolve, refine, and report 9/20/10 – 11/18/10 45
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.
The following individuals and companies have been identified with the expertise and
experience to perform the tasks to complete the scope of work in this proposal: PDC, Inc.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 15 9/3/2008
with public design and engineering experience in rural Alaska; Harris Group, Inc. with
experience in LCNG projects; Estimations, Inc. with experience in making accurate cost
estimates; and two specialized companies with experience related to alternative en ergy
sources – Chinook ( hydro, wind, and solar) and Terrasond (tidal). A more complete
description of PDC, Harris Group and Terrasond are included here, with information related
to the others appended to this application.
A. PDC Inc Engineers
PDC strengths emphasized for this project are provided as follows.
Remote Alaska Community Facilities & Power Generation: Over 30 years
of experience in the analysis, design and commissioning of facilities in
rural Alaska, including schools, community centers, hospitals, clinics and
power generation systems. PDC has extensive experience with bot h new
construction and major renovation in a broad range of both industrial and
institutional facilities. Over the past 10 years, PDC has accomplished the
renovation design serving more than 2.5 million square feet of space.
Most recently PDC was responsible for the design to convert both Fort
Richardson and Elmendorf AFB from central steam heating to on -site gas-
fired heating boiler applications. PDC’s HVAC systems experience includes
power plants, shops and garages, heavy equipment maintenance shops,
administrative spaces, secure facilities, enclosed substation and
switchgear facilities, and computer and communications facilities. PDC’s
experience includes extensive experience in heating and heat generation
systems, glycol pumping systems, and waste heat recovery systems. PDC
developed the design for the 150,000 lb/hr auxiliary heating plant serving
Eielson AFB, the 10mmbh outside air preheat system for the Greens Creek
mine, and the heat generation, waste heat recovery, and heating
distribution system for the $150 million Amundsen Scott South Pole
Station (design temperature -100F).
Fire Suppression and Detection: They have integrated the expertise of
their civil, mechanical and electrical engineering staff to address fire
protection issues in a comprehensive manner. PDC has helped clients with
a broad range of fire protection applications including CO2, AFFF, Halon,
Inergen and wet, dry and glycol based sprinkler systems.
B. Harris Group Inc.
The Energy business unit of Harris Group has extensive experience in both gas turbine
power generation, gas compression projects and LNG plants, as summarized below.
GE Aero-Derivative Gas Turbine Power Generation: Harris Group has
provided successful detail engineering services for over 1,000 MW of GE
aero-derivative capacity in the western US. They are fully-versed in the
design issues of managing the procurement, engineering, and working
with construction contracting partners for fast-tracked power generation
systems. Harris Group discipline leads have performed multip le projects
like this one, and are well aware of what deliverables are required to
direct this team, the level of detail required, and most importantly – how
to produce these deliverables for the lowest number of engineering hours.
Pipeline Gas Compressor Stations: Another strength of Harris Group’s
Energy business unit is in the area of gas pipeline compressor station
design. Many of the same discipline lead engineers noted above for their
exposure to GTG projects have also executed fast-track gas compressor
station projects in the western US. Harris Group project teams have
provided detailed design packages for over 95,000 HP of natural gas
compression capacity in recent years.
Table 1: PDC Harris Group Project Experience in Alaska
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 15 9/3/2008
Description
Power
Generation
Oil &
Gas
Cold
Regions
Facilities
BP Exploration (AK) Milne Pt HOT Power
Generation
√ √ √
BP Exploration (AK) Badami Wind Turbine
Study
√ √
BP Exploration (AK) MPX2 Power
Generation
√ √
BP Exploration (AK) MPU08 Generator
Replace
√ √
BP Exploration (AK) ULSD Procurement
Assist
√
BP Exploration (AK) MPU A Pad
Maintenance Shop
√
Point Lay Power Plant Upgrade √ √
Ft Wainwright Baghouse Detail Design √
Eielson AFB Baghouse Detail Design √
Ft Wainwright Construction Air Permit √
Forest Oil, Osprey Platform services √
Forest Oil, On-shore services √ √
ML&P, Plant 2A Concept Design & Develop
Services
√ √
Chugach Electric Assn., U5 Controls √
Chugach Electric Bernice Lake H2O Inject
Design
√ √
Ft Wainwright Baghouse Commissioning √
Ft Wainwright Air-Cooled Condenser Design √ √
GVEA, NP Expansion, Review P&IDs + √
Winstar Petroleum, Oliktok No. 1 √
AIDEA Healy Clean Coal, Eng’g Services √
Aurora Energy, Chena Compliance Study √
Doyon Utilities, Privatization Assessment
Services
√
Elmendorf AFB Energy System
Decentralization
√
Ft Richardson Energy System
Decentralization
√
C. History of TerraSond Ltd.
Originally formed as Terra Surveys, LLC in Alaska in 1994, TerraSond has specialized in
providing land, hydrographic, and marine geophysical surveys. Originally focused on
Alaskan waters, we now have facilities in Texas and Washington, surveying nationwide and
in several foreign countries. TerraSond has a staff of over 72 persons including: ACSM
Certified Hydrographic Surveyors, Registered Professional Land Surveyors (RPLS), and a
supporting group of hydrographers, land surveyors, marine geophysicists, geologists,
oceanographers, GIS specialists, IT professionals, and professional mariners. Our in-house
equipment includes single and multibeam sonar systems, land survey equipment, GPS
survey equipment, geophysical and oceanographic equipment, and over ten survey vessels.
TerraSond’s client base includes USACE, NOAA, pipeline, power, and international telecoms
cable lay, mining, survey, engineering, port authorities, shipping, dredging, and
construction companies.
TerraSond is now a predominant partner in helping Alaskans accomplish our goal for long
term, environmentally benign, and carbon-free renewable power generation. Recent work
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 15 9/3/2008
has been focused upon the development of in-stream hydrokinetic and tidal renewable
energy feasibility programs. These investigations have initially included resource
assessment, site selection, and hazard evaluation. Longer term goals include static and
dynamic modeling of the energetic system for hazard prediction and the cost benefit of
power generation.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Communication throughout the project will be via frequent e-mail, telephone and face-to-
face contact. Ryan Schmidt, the Chugach School District Project Manager, will meet twice
monthly with representatives from PDC, Inc. He will meet with other vendors during the
periods of their involvement in the project. Mr. Schmidt will provide ongoing information to
both Alaska Energy Authority and to the Chugach School Board and Superintendent. Mr.
Schmidt is expected to make regular reports on the progress of the project at all regularly
scheduled School Board meetings.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
There is little risk in the actual data gathering, collation and evaluation activities associated
with the Reconnaissance Phase other than the major and most obvious one…the effort
shows the potential development of alternative energy projects in the regions under study
yield no possible projects that are economically viable to pursue.
Other minor risks include diesel fuel prices falling to the point where what once were
potentially viable opportunities can no longer be economically justified to continue
development, new technologies requiring new or different parameters be measured and
recorded rendering information already in hand obsolete and competition for equipment and
materials demanded by the similar projects of others driving costs so high as to make the
projects selected for Tatitlek, Chenega Bay and Whittier unbuildable.
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.
Since this proposal is for Reconnaissance and Feasibility, no alternative energy sources have
been eliminated yet. However, wind power seems to be a promising source with Tat itlek
included as a site in the Regional Economic Wind Development study. Those results show
that the Class 7 wind there would produce diesel savings of $96,360 in ’07 for a GHG
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 15 9/3/2008
reduction of 353. This information will be compared to other alternative energy sources
through this project and a discussion of pros and cons related to each source of energy will
be an outcome of this study.
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.
Basic energy generation and delivery arrangements are conventional diesel-generators
supplied with diesel fuel delivered by local suppliers. System typically have no significant
waste heat recovery systems and electricity generated by the units is used by schools,
village and service facilities. Some selected residences are usually connected to the
electrical system. In most cases, no special efforts have been directed toward making users
as energy-efficient as possible and little control or metering has been implemented to
monitor or develop historical trends of use and identify possible energy -savings
opportunities. The sites have oil burning furnaces that are from 15-20 years old. They are
not very energy efficient. Our biggest expensive is heating oil. We also use boilers that use
fuel oil and are 10-15 years old as well.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
The feasibility study will more succinctly identify and focus on possible energy resources, but
it is assumed the use of wind turbines will be a viable candidate for electrical energy
generation. Although potentially only marginally useful, tidal energy and biomass energy
development may also be candidates for electrical energy development. Sho uld any of these
alternative energy possibilities become projects, their subsequent output will displace the
use of traditional fossil fuels in generating electricity. Coupled with those direct savings
would be secondary savings in the form of reduced cost to deliver fuels, savings in
maintenance and operations cost and others. Savings would be increased through
implementation of waste heat recovery from jacket coolant and/or exhaust gases associated
with required continued use of diesel generators and ot her energy-savings measures
installed in facilities using electrical energy. Should other possible alternative energy
projects seem feasible (solar, wind, thermal, other), potential locations and projects will be
included in the feasibility study.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Existing energy use is almost totally generation of electricity and space heating. Incidental
uses are fueling of motor vehicles of all types (cars, 4-wheelers, boats, airplanes, etc.).
Engine generators are fueled by diesel as are the various forms of space heating equipment.
Vehicle fuels are gasoline while airplane fuel is kerosene. Electricity is used primarily for
public facilities (schools, governmental structures, community centers, etc.) and residences.
Most space heating is direct-fired oil stoves or, in the cases of larger facilities, diesel -fueled
boilers with hydronic heating or air distribution systems. The projects identified by this
feasibility study, if implemented, could decrease the overall costs of generating electricity
and heating buildings within each community. As discussed above there would be secondary
savings in the form of decreased shipping.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 15 9/3/2008
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
Since this proposal is for Reconnaissance and Feasibility study, those are the known costs at
this time. Actual responses to this item related to alternative energy sources will emerge
from this study.
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.
There are no known land ownership or access issues at this time. All school district facilities
and adjoining land are owned by the school district. The Chugach School Board had directed
the Superintendent to pursue this study; the study also has the support of the Tatitlek and
Chenega Bay Village IRA Councils.
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
This information is unknown at this time however the project timeline has enough detail and
time built in for contingencies related to any necessary permitting.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 15 9/3/2008
A full discussion of these considerations will be included in the results of the Reconnaissance
and Feasibility studies.
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
At this time, requested grant funding is $1,380,439.00 for reconnaissance and feasibility.
The intent is to achieve a full understanding of the costs to develop and build an alternative
energy system for the public schools operated by Chugach School District. The Chugach
School Board is committed to aggressively seeking the funding required to complete the
transformation of the district facilities to alternati ve energy use.
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
Operating and maintenance costs cannot be estimated at this time.
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
It appears from the Tatitlek wind study that more wind could potentially be generated than
needed for the local schools if that is the most viable source of alternative energy. In the
case of excess energy production, other users could be the village councils, the health
clinics, and the Port and City of Whittier.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
The completed cost worksheet for this proposal is attached.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 15 9/3/2008
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.
Once completed and operational the alternative energy system will be maintained by local
residents employed by the school district. The school district has a high level of commitment
to training for ALL of its employees, and the individuals hired to maintain the energy system
will receive full training as part of that commitment.
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 complete economic analysis will result from the proposed study. Currently, high fuel costs
require resources to be redirected from the primary mission of the school district – the
education of students. Chugach School District, operating as a REAA, has two streams of
funding: the State of Alaska foundation formula for schools based on student enrollment,
and grants. The Superintendent regularly is required to purchase fuel on the spot market to
maximize district resources.
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
The known economic need and benefits from this project were discussed in response to item
4.4.6. The non-economic public benefit from this project is two-fold. First, because Chugach
School District has transparent communication within the three communities it serves there
will be high educational benefit as community members and students learn about alternative
energy. In fact, the District has just submitted a NASA Climate Change grant proposal to
train teachers and engage students in learning about climate change and alternative energy.
Second, since Chugach School District is viewed as a leader among rural school districts, a
successful transition to alternative energy in Chugach that includes community education in
climate change and alternative energy would be a model for other school districts to follow.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 15 9/3/2008
A grant budget for the Reconnaissance and Feasibility phases is attached.
This proposal is for two phases: reconnaissance - $995,999.64 and feasibility -
$384,439.36, for a total request of $1,380,439.00. Budget details are provided by
milestone, by budget category, and also for each contract vendor. The total project cost is
requested in this proposal; Chugach School District relies solely on state and federal
education funding for its operating budget and does not have another source of funds to
develop this proposal.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 15 of 15 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 Robert Crumley
Signature
Title Superintendent, Chugach School District
Date November 10, 2008
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 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. Known Annual wind production in Tatitlek
estimated at 438,000 kWh (AEA Wind
Development study)
Wind, hydro, solar, LCNG, and tidal energy will be
considered in this study.
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 Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 6 boilers/ 3 generators
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Weil Mclain, Burnham, Rheem
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 2-25 years old
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $14,000
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $8,500
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh] 341,969 kWh
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 15,000 – 20,000 gal
Other
iii. Peak Load
iv. Average Load
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency
vii. Future trends
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden
Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage
Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 2
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 15,000 – 20,000 gallons
ii. Electricity [kWh] 341,969 kWh
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 2,000 gallons
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
The Chugach School District Renewable Energy Grant proposal is for the
Reconnaissance and Feasibility phases. Information about a proposed new system
design is not yet available.
3. Proposed System Design
a) Installed capacity
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
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
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system
b) Development cost
c) Annual O&M cost of new system
d) Annual fuel cost
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel
c) Other economic benefits
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 3
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio
Payback
Project Scope
and
Timeline
Contract Fees Estimate Schedule, Chugach School District Alternative Energy Study
Project Mgt Civil Electrical
Reconnaissance & Study 409 days 11/10/2008 8:00 6/23/2010 17:00 ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Submit Grant Application 0 days 11/10/2008 8:00 11/10/2008 8:00
Grants Reviewed 60 edays 11/10/2008 8:00 1/9/2009 8:00
Clarifications of SOW 10 days 1/9/2009 8:00 1/22/2009 17:00 2,000
Final Contracts/Fees 15 days 1/23/2009 8:00 2/12/2009 17:00 3,000
Team Kick-off Meeting 1 day 2/13/2009 8:00 2/13/2009 17:00 2,000 300 300
Prep for Field 10 days 2/16/2009 8:00 2/27/2009 17:00 3,000
Mobilization 2 days 3/2/2009 8:00 3/3/2009 17:00 500
Tatitlek - Set up Sensors 3 days 3/4/2009 8:00 3/6/2009 17:00 500
Chenega Bay - Set up Sensors 3 days 3/9/2009 8:00 3/11/2009 17:00 500
Whittier - Set up Sensors 3 days 3/12/2009 8:00 3/16/2009 17:00 500
Monitor Selected Parameters 87 edays 3/16/2009 17:00 6/11/2009 17:00 500
Check Data Collection Equipment 3 days 6/12/2009 8:00 6/16/2009 17:00 500
Monitor Selected Parameters 87 days 6/16/2009 17:00 9/11/2009 17:00 500
Check Data Collection Equipment 3 days 9/14/2009 8:00 9/16/2009 17:00 500
Monitor Selected Parameters 87 edays 9/16/2009 17:00 12/12/2009 17:00 500
Check Data Collection Equipment 3 days 12/14/2009 8:00 12/16/2009 17:00 500
Monitor Selected Parameters 90 days 12/16/2009 17:00 3/16/2010 17:00 500
Dismantle/Remove Equipment 5 days 3/17/2010 8:00 3/23/2010 17:00 500
Demobilization of Data Collection 1 day 3/24/2010 8:00 3/24/2010 17:00 500
Collate all Data 20 days 3/25/2010 8:00 4/21/2010 17:00 1,000
Select Possible Project Sites 5 days 4/22/2010 8:00 4/28/2010 17:00 2,000
Prepare for Field 2 days 4/22/2010 8:00 4/23/2010 17:00 1,000 500 500
Travel 1 day 4/26/2010 8:00 4/26/2010 17:00 500 500
Tatitlek - Survey Systems 1 day 4/27/2010 8:00 4/27/2010 17:00 2,000 2,000
Chenega Bay - Survey Systems 1 day 4/28/2010 8:00 4/28/2010 17:00 2,000 2,000
Whittier - Survey Systems 1 day 4/29/2010 8:00 4/29/2010 17:00 2,000 2,000
Travel 1 day 4/30/2010 8:00 4/30/2010 17:00 500 500
Team Meeting - Coordinate 1 day 5/3/2010 8:00 5/3/2010 17:00 1,800 1,600 1,600
Determine Projects' Sizes 1 day 5/4/2010 8:00 5/4/2010 17:00 1,000 500 500
Conceptual Configurations 12 days 5/5/2010 8:00 5/20/2010 17:00 1,800 2,000 3,500
Conceptual Estimates 12 days 5/21/2010 8:00 6/7/2010 17:00 300 200 300
<<<<< PDC, Inc Engineers >>>>>
Test Projects' Viability 5 days 6/8/2010 8:00 6/14/2010 17:00 1,000 200 500
Select Tatitlek Projects 1 day 6/15/2010 8:00 6/15/2010 17:00 200 100 100
Select Chenega Bay Projects 1 day 6/16/2010 8:00 6/16/2010 17:00 200 100 100
Select Whittier Projects 1 day 6/17/2010 8:00 6/17/2010 17:00 200 100 100
Submit Projects for Approval 3 days 6/18/2010 8:00 6/22/2010 17:00 500 200 400
Finalize Projects List 1 day 6/23/2010 8:00 6/23/2010 17:00 750
Proceed to Feasibility Study 0 days 6/23/2010 17:00 6/23/2010 17:00
Feasibility Study 107 days 6/24/2010 8:00 11/19/2010 17:00 ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Kickoff Meeting 1 day 6/24/2010 8:00 6/24/2010 17:00 2,000 300 300
Clarify SOW for Each Project 5 days 6/25/2010 8:00 7/1/2010 17:00 4,000 600 1,000
Establish Schedules and Goals 3 days 7/2/2010 8:00 7/6/2010 17:00 1,000 200 200
Develop Schematic Design 22 days 7/7/2010 8:00 8/5/2010 17:00 8,000 15,000 22,750
Schematic Estimate 10 days 8/6/2010 8:00 8/19/2010 17:00 1,200 300 500
Submit for Approval 1 day 8/20/2010 8:00 8/20/2010 17:00 1,800 200 400
Owner/Agency Review 30 edays 8/20/2010 17:00 9/19/2010 17:00
Resolve Issues 1 day 9/20/2010 8:00 9/20/2010 17:00 1,200 1,200 1,500
Team Coordination Meeting 1 day 9/21/2010 8:00 9/21/2010 17:00 800 800 800
35% Design 10 days 9/22/2010 8:00 10/5/2010 17:00 3,000 10,000 17,500
Refine Estimate 5 days 10/6/2010 8:00 10/12/2010 17:00 800 200 200
Develop Pro Forma 7 days 10/13/2010 8:00 10/21/2010 17:00 1,500 2,000
Adjust Project Parameters as Required 1 day 10/22/2010 8:00 10/22/2010 17:00 500 200 200
Adjust Design as Required 10 days 10/25/2010 8:00 11/5/2010 17:00 1,000 5,000 10,000
Adjust Estimate 5 days 11/8/2010 8:00 11/12/2010 17:00 300 200
Adjust Pro Forma 3 days 11/15/2010 8:00 11/17/2010 17:00 300 200
Submit Grant for Project Completion 2 days 11/18/2010 8:00 11/19/2010 17:00 1,500 500 750
Proceed to Final Design/Permitting 0 days 11/19/2010 17:00 11/19/2010 17:00
57,150 47,300 73,400
PDC Engineers
617,800
Liquefied Hydro
Compr.Wind
Nat. Gas Solar Tidal Costs
Mechanical Structural HGI Chinook Terrasond Estimations Expenses
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
0
0
2,000
3,000
300 300 1,000 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 9,200
10,000 12,500 15,000 40,500 54,700 1- Prep for fieldwork 96 days/3 mo.
17,500 10,000 5,000 33,000
17,500 30,000 100,000 148,000
17,500 30,000 85,000 133,000
17,500 30,000 65,000 113,000
3,000 3,000 300 6,800
7,500 3,000 3,000 14,000 447,800 2a- Data Collection Period #1, 101 days/3.3 mo.
3,000 3,000 300 6,800
7,500 3,000 3,000 14,000 20,800 2b- Data Collection Period #2 90 days/3 mo.
3,000 3,000 300 6,800
7,500 3,000 3,000 14,000 20,800 2c- Data Collection Period #3 90 days/3 mo.
3,000 3,000 300 6,800
25,000 15,000 5,000 45,500
15,000 10,000 5,000 30,500 82,800 2d- Data Collection Period #4 96 days/3 mo.
25,000 10,000 36,000
12,500 7,500 22,000
500 1,000 250 3,750
500 750 1,500 3,750
2,000 2,500 8,500
2,000 2,500 8,500
2,000 2,500 8,500
500 750 1,500 3,750 94,750 3- Determination of Possible sites 32 days/1 mo.
1,600 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 22,600
500 500 5,000 5,000 5,000 18,000
3,000 1,500 5,000 5,000 2,000 500 24,300
300 200 2,500 500 500 5,000 9,800
<<<<< PDC, Inc Engineers >>>>>
800 200 1,000 1,500 5,200
100 100 600
100 100 600
100 100 600
500 200 500 200 1,000 3,500
750 85,950 4- Recon Complete & Reported 38 days/ 1.2 mo.
0
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
300 300 1,000 2,000 2,000 300 5,000 13,500
1,000 600 1,500 600 600 600 10,500
200 200 500 200 200 200 2,900 26,900 5 - Feasibility Goals and Schedule established 9 days/ .33 mo.
27,500 15,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 115,750
500 300 500 500 500 10,000 14,300
400 200 500 300 300 300 1,500 5,900
0 135,950 6- Review of Design and Schematics 63 days/ 2 mo.
1,500 1,200 1,500 500 500 500 9,600
800 800 1,000 400 400 250 6,050
20,000 10,000 15,000 75,500
200 200 1,000 3,000 5,600
2,000 7,500 300 300 7,500 21,100
200 200 500 200 200 2,200
12,500 5,000 5,000 38,500
200 1,000 2,000 3,700
200 1,500 2,200
750 500 2,000 500 5,000 11,500
0
175,950 7- Resolve, Refine, and Submit final study 45 days/ 1.5 mo.
83,050 39,700 80,500 216,500 196,500 35,100 317,200 1,146,400 1,146,400
Nat Gas Chinook Tidal Cost Est
1- Prep for fieldwork 96 days/3 mo.
2a- Data Collection Period #1, 101 days/3.3 mo.
2b- Data Collection Period #2 90 days/3 mo.
2c- Data Collection Period #3 90 days/3 mo.
2d- Data Collection Period #4 96 days/3 mo.
3- Determination of Possible sites 32 days/1 mo.
4- Recon Complete & Reported 38 days/ 1.2 mo.
5 - Feasibility Goals and Schedule established 9 days/ .33 mo.
6- Review of Design and Schematics 63 days/ 2 mo.
7- Resolve, Refine, and Submit final study 45 days/ 1.5 mo.
Budget
Summary
Alaska Energy Authority - Renewable Energy Fund
BUDGET INFORMATION
BUDGET SUMMARY:
Milestone or Task Federal Funds State Funds Local Match Funds (Cash)
Local Match Funds
(In-Kind)Other Funds
1.) Reconnaissance Phase: Preparation for
fieldwork $68,742.88
2a.) Reconnaissance Phase: Data collection
period #1 $487,198.08
2b.) Reconnaissance Phase: Data collection
period #2 $55,907.20
2c.) Reconnaissance Phase: Data collection
period #3 $55,898.20
2d.) Reconnaissance Phase: Data collection
period #4 $120,247.68
3.) Reconnaissance Phase: Determination of
possible sites $107,232.56
4.) Reconnaissance Phase: Recon complete
and reported $100,773.04
5.) Feasibility Study: Goals and schedule
established $30,410.72
6.) Feasibility Study: Review of design and
schematics $160,525.04
7.) Feasibility Study: Resolve, refine and
submit final study $193,503.60 $384,439.36
TOTALS BY MILESTONE $1,380,439.00
Milestone # or Task #
BUDGET CATEGORIES:1 2a 2b 2c 2d
Direct Labor and Benefits $5,148.00 $14,443.00 $12,870.00 $12,870.00 $13,728.00
Travel, Meals, or Per Diem $8,737.20 $24,512.70 $21,843.00 $21,834.00 $23,299.20
Equipment
Supplies $157.68 $442.38 $394.20 $394.20 $420.48
Contractual Services $54,700.00 $447,800.00 $20,800.00 $20,800.00 $82,800.00
Construction Services
Other Direct Costs
TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES $68,742.88 $487,198.08 $55,907.20 $55,898.20 $120,247.68
Chugach School District Renewable Energy Proposal: Reconnaissance and Feasibility Phases
RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
Alaska Energy Authority - Renewable Energy Fund
TOTALS
$68,742.88
$487,198.08
$55,907.20
$55,898.20
$120,247.68
$107,232.56
$100,773.04
$30,410.72
$160,525.04
$577,942.96
$1,764,878.36
3 4 5 6 7
$4,576.00 $5,434.00 $1,287.00 $9,009.00 $6,435.00 $85,800.00
$7,766.40 $9,222.60 $2,184.30 $15,290.10 $10,921.50 $145,611.00
$0.00
$140.16 $166.44 $39.42 $275.94 $197.10 $2,628.00
$94,750.00 $85,950.00 $26,900.00 $135,950.00 $175,950.00 $1,146,400.00
$0.00
$0.00
$107,232.56 $100,773.04 $30,410.72 $160,525.04 $193,503.60 $1,380,439.00
Chugach School District Renewable Energy Proposal: Reconnaissance and Feasibility PhasesChugach School District Renewable Energy Proposal: Reconnaissance and Feasibility Phases
RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
Budget
Narrative
Chugach School District Renewable Energy Proposal
Budget Narrative
BUDGET CATEGORIES
1. Direct Labor and Benefits:
This category includes salary and benefits for Ryan Schmidt and Adrienne Fleming of Chugach
School District. Mr. Schmidt will function as the overall Project Director with responsibility for
coordination of all work outlined in the project scope, and communication with contractors and
Alaska Energy Authority. Mr. Schmidt will also be responsible for all reporting and
accountability associated with the project.
Salary for R. Schmidt calculated at $60.000 annual salary X .50 effort + .375% benefits. Daily
rate for salary and benefits = $113. Daily rate was used with number of days per milestone to
calculate the cost of his effort toward the project. Mr. Schmidt’s resume is attached.
Adrienne Fleming is the accounts manager at Chugach School District. She will manage all of
the receipts and disbursements for the project. Her time is calculated based on annual salary of
$40,000 at .20 effort throughout the project, daily rate of $83 including benefits for 20% effort.
As with Mr. Schmidt, the labor and benefits for Ms. Fleming were based on the daily amount
times the number of days per milestone.
Benefits were calculated at .375% of annual salary.
2. Travel, Meals or Per Diem:
It is estimated that Mr. Schmidt as Project Manager will need to make monthly visits to each of
the three Chugach sites during the course of the project to assess progress of the contractors and
ensure ongoing community support for the project. Those travel costs were estimated as follows:
Small airplane charter to Chenega Bay @ $3,640 round trip X 12 trips annually plus one day per
diem @$40 X 12 trips = $3,640. This same calculation was applied to Tatitlek ($3,640). Whittier
is on the road system, so travel there is 100 miles by car X .50/mile plus $12 tunnel ticket plus 1
day per diem @ $40, total of $102 per month. Total cost for travel monthly is $7382, annual cost
$88,584. The annual amount was divided by 365 to obtain a daily rate of $242.70. This amount
was multiplied by the number of days estimated per milestone.
3. Supplies:
The budget for supplies was calculated as follows: $1,000 for office supplies annually, cellular
telephone service at $50/month = $600/year and $1,500 for laptop computer purchased during
milestone one. Cost of office supplies and cellular service = $1,600 annually / 365 = $4. daily
rate used with days per milestone to calculate cost.
Contract Services:
This budget line includes payment to DPC, Inc. Engineers for mechanical, electrical, civil,
structural, fire protection, and environmental engineering expertise, total of $617,800.
Another contractor will be Estimations, which specializes is conceptual and budget estimates
including cost control, for $ 35,100.
Specialists in alternative energy study and design will be contracted as follows: HGI (specialists
in use of liquefied compressed natural gas) $80,500; Chinook for the study of hydro, wind, and
solar energy $216,500; and Terrasond for the study of tidal power $196,500.
All of the contract services costs are detailed in the attached Contract Fee estimate schedule, by
contractor and milestone.
Resumes
-
Contract
Vendor
Resumes
PDC Inc. Engineers (PDC) has been providing engineering services
in Anchorage for over 30 years. Our full-service multi-discipline
engineering firm employs nearly 80 professionals providing complete
services in mechanical, electrical, civil, structural, fire protection, and
environmental engineering, as well as land surveying.
With this in-house multi-disciplined array of resources we can quickly and seamlessly bring
additional engineering disciplines into a project with no impact to the schedule. This
arrangement provides our clients with a true single source of services for all their engineering
requirements.
We have an excellent track record of providing practical and reality-based engineering analysis
and cost effective design. Our reputation is founded on responding to compressed schedules
and completing projects on time and within budget.
PDC understands the rigorous climate and the logistics of travel to the study areas. Limited
facility availability, problematic transportation schedules, absence of infrastructure and short
construction periods make proper staging of work in remote sites a necessity more often than
not.
Over the past 30 years we have had the opportunity to live and work in remote sites, conduct
inventory and condition surveys, work with users and operating personnel, participate in
research projects and evaluate the performance of design solutions. We apply this experience
to each new project undertaking. We are noted for our ability to address difficult design issues
and develop comprehensive design solutions.
Design for remote regions requires the designer to completely understand the manufacturer's
representative is not "just a phone call away". Mechanical and electrical systems serving
remote facilities must be compact, reliable and simple. The sophisticated client, however,
demands systems that are safe, energy conservative, flexible and transparent to the user.
PDC recognizes the importance of systems and materials selection for application in remote
cold regions. Performance, weight, constructability, and maintainability must be rigorously
considered. We stay abreast of emerging technologies for application in remote cold regions. As
well, we continually evaluate the performance of past projects to verify the long term
performance of the various systems.
PDC received a Regional ASHRAE Energy Award for its Chiniak School Design. This remote
facility incorporated hydronic heating, generator waste heat recovery for both space heating and
domestic hot water preheating, exhaust heat recovery, a modified VAV air distribution system,
and DDC controls to achieve energy efficient operation. We have also performed work at both
the Tatitlek and Whittier schools.
Heat recovery and energy conservation are an integral part of PDC’s design expertise. Fuel
costs at most remote cold region sites make heat recovery and energy conservation alternatives
a necessity. However, the unforgiving physical characteristics and isolation of the sites has
required us to develop cost effective and reliable design solutions.
Most importantly, PDC knows energy generation and utilization systems in all their forms and
configurations. Energy development, its distribution, and its consumption are costly factors in
the everyday lives of facilities and people. PDC’s experience yields energy development and
generation projects with high-efficiency and lower life-cycle costs. We use every watt and BTU
we can economically derive. Our designs for distribution systems minimize losses to deliver
that energy where it will be used. Finally, our utilization systems employ the configurations
required to make the most of that energy.
PDC . . . whatever it takes – wherever it takes us!
-
-
-
-
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
1
INTRODUCTION
The technology set forth is this application represents a clean fuel alternative which may
serve as the basis for hybrid combinations with wind-powered and other forms of
alternative energy electric generation;
technologies which are handicapped by
the requirement for base-loaded
electrical generation to support them.
The natural gas based conversion
described in our application fits very well
in the role of hybrid renewable back-up
generation.
The LCNG technology described here is
commercially-proven, robust and
expanding at a rapid pace outside of
Alaska. It requires little developmental
risk to bring it to Alaska’s remote
communities.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Introduction
Our proposed project addresses the largest contributor to sky-rocketing fuel costs in
remote Alaskan communities – petroleum derived diesel fuel and fuel oil – by
substituting lower priced and more environmentally acceptable natural gas. As stated,
we envision this fuel substitution concept as a bridge to longer-term renewable solutions
for remote Alaska communities.
With the assistance of the grant funding
(and with our cost shared contribution) our
team proposes to conduct Reconnaissance
and Feasibility level analysis in the coastal
villages of Tatitlek, Chenega Bay and
Whittier to prove the economic and
technical feasibility of transporting Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) to a remote village,
storing the fuel as Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG) in commercially available pressure
vessels at the village site, and distributing
the gas for use in existing furnaces, boilers
and an engine-electric generator set via low
pressure piping, much like that used in the
lower 48 states.
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
2
Based upon the very significant disparity in pricing between natural gas and petroleum-
derived distillate fuel, the substitution of natural gas for diesel and fuel oil will result in
price savings per unit of energy. Eroding natural gas pricing, prior to the recent
economic downturn, is indicative of an increasing surplus of natural gas in the lower 48,
which will likely increase the disparity in $ per BTU for many years.
Henceforth in this application we will use the industrial acronym of LCNG to represent
liquefied compressed natural gas, or more appropriately ‘liquefied to compressed natural
gas’ technology. CNG is produced from LNG more efficiently than it is from the
alternative source; pipeline natural gas. LNG is more efficiently transported than is CNG.
These points are developed further in later sections of the application.
LCNG as a Bridge Solution
The investment capital requirements for modifying a village energy infrastructure are
minimized using this approach, as existing oil fired-equipment and diesel-driven electric
generation can be converted to run on natural gas, and do not require wholesale
replacement. For this reason, and the commercial availability of the hardware associated
with the conversion to LNG and CNG, the time to implement this solution is short. Unlike
renewable solutions, which generally require major changes to a village’s infrastructure
system to accommodate a new source of thermal or electrical energy, this solution relies
on:
Maximizing the efficiencies and operational economics of LCNG technology and
storage components, and transport know-how of this commercially successful
technology1
Maximizing the reuse of existing energy conversion systems installed in village
homes, school, community buildings, and power generation utility thru the use of
compatible, clean burning natural gas.
1 For introductory information on the commercial status of CNG in Europe, Asia and
So. America, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
3
Minimizing the installation of capital intensive conversion systems which are
often inefficient or require significant real estate to capture or convert a dilute renewable
energy source.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phase I of the project will involve assessment of the current diesel and fuel oil users
within the villages of Tatitlek, Chenega Bay and Whittier, to estimate the volume of CNG
to be supplied, the extent of modification required to accommodate the switchover2 to
natural gas, and of course the willingness of the village residents to be involved.
Phase II will build on the inventory data from the first stage, and will entail development
of conceptual design elements sufficient to support the economic analysis. The second
stage will also emphasize a firm supply of pipeline quality natural gas or LNG, as well as
identifying critical path schedule constraints such as environmental or transport permits.
PROJECT BENEFIT
Village LCNG Conversion has several key benefits associated with community and
residential cost savings, as well as environmental benefits. These are summarized
below.
Economic:
Lowered cost of primary fuel for space heating, and power generation
Rapid implementation relative to other renewable alternatives, based on
maximizing the displacement of petroleum distillates with minimal retrofit expense
Future credits associated with reduced greenhouse gas emissions relative to
diesel or fuel oil use.
Enhanced reliability of burner and engine components, based on switchover to
clean fuel.
Environmental:
Reduction in primary air pollutants SO2, hydrocarbons, metals (e.g. mercury,
lead), and particulates.
Significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
Elimination of diesel/fuel oil spills.
2 Based upon a survey of users, dual fuel capability may be considered for critical
systems.
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
4
As stated above, there are potential benefits based upon a favorable outcome of the
economic feasibility modeling to be conducted during the Phase II effort. This technology
is also transferrable to communities outside the named regions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
This section of the application provides additional details of the pilot LCNG substitution
project, and the tasks outlined in the Work Breakdown Structure.
Proposed Energy Resource
Natural gas, delivered and stored as LNG, and CNG3, respectively, will be used to
substitute for diesel/fuel oil. Displacement of petroleum-derived liquids used for space
heating in homes, schools and community centers with CNG derived natural gas
Converting a diesel engine on one of the community electrical generators from
100% diesel operation to dual fuel operation. This conversion, using commercially
available hardware and control software, will allow replacement of a nominal 80% of the
fuel requirements at full-load operation with CNG-derived natural gas.
LCNG Availability
LNG is currently available from two sources within the state: the Kenai LNG Plant owned
by ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc (CPAI) and Marathon, and a smaller LNG liquefaction plant
owned by Fairbanks Natural Gas4 (FNG) at Point McKenzie. Also, LNG is a world-wide
commodity, and is therefore available from sources outside the state.
From the perspective of longer term economics, it is advantageous to consider
developing an alternative source of LNG, since both of the two existing sources serve
established markets, and it is unlikely that either would offer optimum pricing.
Additionally neither source will support larger sale volumes associated with the
possibility of expanded regional use.
In the future, LNG associated with the Alaska North Slope Gas Pipeline is the ideal
source, potentially offering the lowest pricing for larger volumes, should this concept
prove feasible for larger scale use. The economics of ANS natural gas as a source of
LNG will be investigated as part of Phase II studies. Additionally, the world-wide LNG
market will be investigated during Phase II.
3 At this stage of project development, the concept is to store the fuel in a centralized or semi -
centralized pressure vessel located near current liquid fuel storage and barge off-load area.
During Phase I we will study the merits of storing LNG on-site at near atmospheric pressure
and cryogenic temperature. 4 FNG has announced plans to build another LNG plant on the North Slope, and has an
agreement to purchase gas from ExxonMobil. However, construction of this plant appears to
be delayed.
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
5
Delivery of LCNG
Delivery of natural gas to the region is accomplished most efficiently, in terms of
transportation cost, in its most dense form, which is LNG.5 Stored at a atmospheric
pressure, liquefied natural gas has a temperature of -256ºF, requiring double-walled
insulated storage tanks, to preserve cryogenic conditions. These conditions represent a
technological challenge to a remote community, and storage as CNG represents a
simpler approach.
LNG has been in commercial use since the 1960s, serving as a means for monetizing
stranded natural gas in producing basins not linked to markets by gas transmission
pipelines. The industry has undergone tremendous growth in the last 5 years, and
several world-scale import (regasification) plants have been permitted and constructed in
the lower 48 to accommodate anticipated imports. There are approximately 225 LNG
transport ships world-wide, and 24 export terminals, as of early 2007. One of these is the
Kenai LNG plant, the only export facility in the U.S.
System components (tanks, pumps and heat exchangers) for storage and transport are
readily available from numerous suppliers. Our plan is to design a suitable storage and
transfer system for a standard delivery barge, such as those currently used by Crowley
Marine. Fabrication will involve outfitting a new or surplus barge with cryogenic storage
tanks, filling system piping, off-loading piping, pumps and heat transfer equipment
sufficient to transfer and convert the LNG to CNG for storage to a pressurized cylinder at
the village site. Commercially available pre-fabricated barges for delivery of LCNG are
available from Europe as well.
To convert LNG to CNG requires raising the cryogenic liquid pressure from
approximately atmospheric pressure (in the LNG transport tanks) to approximately 3000
PSIG (storage tank pressure for CNG. Following pressurization, the fluid must be heated
to near ambient temperature for compatibility with the CNG storage vessel materials.
This can be accomplished using air to fluid heat exchanger, where fans direct ambient
air across tube bundles
In the future, should LCNG be used regionally or state-wide, conversion of the diesel
drives on-board the marine vessels used to haul the barges is also a possibility. Like the
conversion of from diesel in the village(s), such conversions would yield benefits in terms
of operating expense, and the emissions of Greenhouse Gases.
On-Site Storage of LCNG
As stated in the prior section, natural gas delivered to the village as LNG will be
converted to CNG using barge-mounted pump system and heat transfer equipment.
Storage of natural gas as CNG is considered optimal for remote communities because:
Cryogenic temperatures and specialized vessel alloys are not involved
Since the CNG storage vessel is closed and pressurized, boil-off loses are zero
5 Relative to diesel or fuel oil, LNG has an energy density of approximately 60%, meaning a
volume of approximately 167% the volume of diesel/fuel oil has the same energy content in
heating value (British Thermal Unit, BTU).
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
6
Conversion of LNG to CNG is accomplished with a pump and simple heat exchanger,
and requires minor electrical power.
Also, as part of the work conducted during Phase I Reconnaissance, the team will
conduct a short study comparing the alternative of installing LNG storage at the
community against the primary means of storage. The study will examine costs,
maintenance requirements, safety as well as potential boil-off loses from the LNG
cryogenic system.
Figure 1
Schematic Diagram of System for Delivery, Conversion & Storage of LCNG
Conceptual Diagram
LCNG Transport, Storage &
Dispensing
27 October 08 13LNG CNG Bullet
LNG to CNG
Heater
LNG Barge
to Gas Users
pump
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
7
Advantages and Disadvantages of Proposed Resource
Generally the primary benefit of the replacement of these fuels with natural gas,
delivered as LCNG is cost-related. Not only is there a significant savings in terms of
$/BTU with the LCNG substitution, but the fractional impact on total community BTU
consumption is large. The latter cannot be claimed by most renewable sources.
Due to the incremental cost savings associated with the fuel substitution proposed here,
this technology compliments the use of certain renewable energy sources which require
a backup such as wind turbine generation, or solar photovoltaic systems.
Existing Energy System
Configuration
It is our intention to more fully delineate the size of the boundaries of the envelope and
conduct a census of the fuel users within this area during Phase I Reconnaissance work.
Within the facilities to be included in the study and pilot installation, are conventional
thermal energy conversion devices (furnaces and boilers) found in nearly every off-the-
road community in Alaska. The boilers are outfitted with burners that are readily
convertible to natural gas, generally requiring only burner assembly replacement. Large
centralized hot air furnaces are anticipated to be readily convertible via burner
modifications as well. Smaller wall-mounted Monitor or Toyo direct vent heaters may be
amenable to conversion, depending upon their age and configuration. If they are not
convertible, replacement with new gas-fired units will not be prohibitively expensive, and
will be included in the Phase III/IV budget development.
Electrical Generation
As mentioned earlier in the application, we will investigateconversion of one of diesel
engine generator sets to natural gas/diesel dual fuel firing.
As an alternative, to be developed during Phase I Reconnaissance, we will investigate
the purchase of a suitable surplus natural gas engine-generator set for the purpose of
including electrical generation in the scope of the pilot installation.
Generally, this project proposes no new electrical generation in the community, only
substitution of natural gas for approximately 80% to 95% of the diesel fuel consumed in
engine-generators.
Existing Energy Resources
A detailed description of the resources existing in the communities is beyond the scope
of this application. As stated elsewhere in the application, our team will conduct a survey
of existing fuel users during Phase Ito define the list of facilities to be included in the
reconnaissance study and feasibility analysis.
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
8
Impact to Existing Energy Infrastructure & Resources
This project has the potential to impact numerous residential and public energy users in
the community, once equipment is ordered for installation as a pilot project. Individual
residential space heaters (furnaces or boilers) will be converted to natural gas use with
minimal impact, from a physical and economic perspective. The same philosophy
applies to public buildings included in the project; conversion to natural gas is expected
to have minimal impact. Conversion work will be planned for the warmer months, to
minimize periods when space heating is in demand.
As part of the residential and public fuel user census conducted in Phase I, the team will
identify particular installations where backup fuel oil heating is recommended; based on
user reluctance to switch fuels, or other sensitive issues such medical needs.
Conversion of diesel generators to dual fuel operation will potentially have more of an
impact. Hardware and control software will need to be installed, functionally tested and
commissioned. Fortunately several US and European companies now market the
components for converting large industrial scale diesel engines to dual fuel operation. A
project of this scope may be expected to consume 60 to 100 days (for installation and
functional checkout only), and will require that the engine-generator set be
decommissioned for a comparable period. The plan and schedule for conducting this
work will be developed during Phase I and II work.
As indicated in an earlier section, the investment capital requirements for modifying the
community energy infrastructure are expected to be minor, when compared with the
costs associated with a Greenfield renewable project, such a wind turbine or solar array.
There will be new capital equipment required for a centralized CNG storage system, and
distribution piping. The installation costs associated with these components will be
identified in Phase II feasibility investigations. Likewise, as shown in the Preliminary
Project Schedule and WBS, we also intend to develop cost information for a barge-
mounted LNG storage and transfer system, capable of navigating Alaska’s waters, and
serving the same markets presently supplied by diesel/fuel oil suppliers.
Land Ownership
To date land issues have not been addressed for this project. Our intent is to develop a
land and asset ownership plan during the Phase II feasibility studies. The following
general generalized topics will need to be more fully developed during the course of the
analyses.
Land for Receipt and Storage of LCNG
The land necessary for receiving lines, storage systems and containment dikes will be
identified and a plan developed for acquiring rights, if necessary. The objective is co-
locating these components within the tank farm area presently used for storage of diesel,
fuel oil and gasoline.
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
9
Rights of Way for Gas Distribution Piping
Low pressure gas distribution will be routed through existing utilidors or pipe supports to
the extent possible, i.e. using the same pathway as existing oil distribution lines. Where
this is not feasible, lines will be run above ground or shallow buried to the primary gas
users. Easements or rights of way will be investigated in Phase I reconnaissance and
laid-out in Phase II.
Environmental Permits & Code Analysis
LCNG Related Permit & Code Requirements
The Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for
regulatory authority of ports, waterfront facilities and navigable waterways as they apply
to LNG operations. Regulations and permit requirements under 33 CFR 127 ‘Waterfront
Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas and Liquefied Hazardous Gas’.
Additionally, there are requirements regulatory requirements which may be applicable
under the following federal agencies.
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Fish and Wildlife Service
US Army Corps of Engineers
Minerals Management Service
Applicable Permits
At this point in the conceptual development of this project, a detailed listing of permits
required for intrastate shipping of LNG has not been determined. This will be
accomplished during Phase I Reconnaissance work. If the project considers purchasing
imported LNG as it is developed, permitting requirements will become more complex,
requiring additional investigation.
Permitting Timeline
A detailed permitting schedule will be developed as part of the investigation noted in the
prior section. Preparation of permit applications will be undertaken in Phase III, once the
project’s technical and economic feasibility are properly demonstrated.
Chugach School District - AEA Grant Application
LCNG Technology Component
10
Potential Permit Risk
Permitting requirements represent a potential risk to a small scale LCNG pilot project,
simply because they are not quantified at this point in the project. Based on initial work
to be conducted during Phase I, this risk is likely to be reduced, as the regulatory
framework is developed.
Moora Feb 08 1
MICHAEL W. MOORA, P.E.
PROJECT MANAGER & PROCESS ENGINEER
University of Utah
Master of Science, Fuels & Chemical Engineering
Drexel University
Master of Science, Environmental Engineering
Rutgers University
Bachelor of Science, Mechanical/Aerospace Engineering
BACKGROUND
Michael W. Moora is a registered Process Engineer and Project Manager with
over 30 years of experience in a broad spectrum of process and environmental
remediation industries. He has executed projects in diverse areas such as
natural gas treatment, synthesis gas production, flue gas cleanup, RCRA waste
treatment, CERCLA RI/FS studies, remedial designs/actions, radioactive waste
immobilization, wastewater treatment, synthetic fuels pilot development,
chemicals production and biotechnology development.
Mr. Moora has design experience including:
Feasibility and economic analysis
Conceptual design and optimization studies
Process design development and flow sheet simulation
Detailed engineering - equipment/instrument data sheets and purchase
specifications
Project management - deliverables and schedule management, costs, and
change orders
Equipment procurement and fabrication inspection
HAZOP analysis and relief valve design/documentation
Operating manuals/operator training, facility commissioning and start-up
Technology assessment and due diligence investigations
Air emissions control and air quality permitting
EXPERIENCE
General Manager, PDC Harris Group LLC, Anchorage, AK. Responsible for
business development, project management and operations support for
this energy business–sector joint venture. Business development and
project management work included:
Moora Feb 08 2
• BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc: Project Manager, Milne Point S Pad
heater define engineering package.
• Doyon Utilities, Fairbanks AK: Preparation of qualifications and
detailed proposals resulting in the award of engineering services
contracts in support of Doyon’s privatization takeover of multiple
power generation and related utility systems at three DOD bases in
Alaska.
• Municipality of Anchorage, Municipal Light & Power: Project Manager
for concept design and capital cost estimate to retrofit Units 5 and 7
combined cycle combustion turbines with selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) NOx reactors integrated within the existing heat recovery
steam generators (HRSG).
• Questar Gas Management Co., Salt Lake City: Lead Process Engineer
for the development of a detailed ASPEN HYSYS simulator package
for the Blacks Fork Gas Processing Plant. Following refinement of
model, used to debottleneck fractionation train for enhancing the
production of NGLs.
• Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District: Process Engineer
supporting field check-out and commissioning of an air-cooled
condenser system at Ft Wainwright, AK. This retrofit project entailed
a 3 bay system for condensing turbine exhaust steam from 3 x 5 MW
steam turbines to alleviate the formation of ice-fog from the plants
cooling pond.
• BP Exploration Alaska (BPXA): Project Manager for a fast-track
detailed design for a major slab on grade compressor building at the
Milne Point Unit. Extremely rapid development of concepts for a
stick-built, custom engineered building employing a passive
foundation supporting a 15,000 horsepower reciprocating gas
compressor.
• BP Exploration Alaska (BPXA): Project Manager for a generator
replacement project at BPXA’s Milne Point. Involved development of
a detailed specification to provide an upgraded 25 MVA generator
capable of retrofit within tight confines of an off-shore enclosure.
• BP Exploration Alaska (BPXA): Project Manager for developing a
specification for modular camp design for North Slope deployment.
Responsible for architectural, mechanical, electrical, foundation and
fire protection
• Chugach Electric Association: Project Manager for Bernice Lake
Power Plant Water Injection System. This fast-track detailed design
focused on design and procurement services for a deionized water
Moora Feb 08 3
injection system to mitigate NOx formation on two GE Frame 5 gas
turbines.
• MOA, Municipal Light & Power: Project Manager for feasibility and
concept level engineering development of a 2 x1 GE 6FA combustion
turbine power generation system. Responsible for all aspects of this
236 MWe power plant, including engineering deliverables, contracting
plan, risk management plan, procurement plan, technical studies,
and customer liaison.
• MOA, Municipal Light & Power: Project engineer for Unit 5 heat
balance study examining retrofitting of GE LM2500+ and LM6000 to
replace existing Westinghouse W251B-3 gas turbine.
• HC&S Company, Maui, Hawaii: Project manager for a structural
assessment and modifications to support structure and foundations
for Boiler No. 3 stack, venturi scrubber and separator.
• Chevron Alaska (formerly UNOCAL Alaska): Negotiation and
development of a general engineering services agreement.
• Aurora Energy: Management of technical and economic feasibility
studies aimed at bringing the Chena Plant into compliance with
recent ADEC Notice of Violation, while providing enhanced power
sales revenues.
• Winstar Petroleum: Detailed design of oil production system at
Oliktok Point State No. 1; tie-in to existing ConcoPhillips (CPAI)
manifold and test separator at drillpad 3R. Design integration with
CPAI engineering standards, and including gated & phased project
development methodology.
• Forest Oil Corporation: Detailed design of oil production systems for
Osprey Platform Well Room No. 2 and gas production for Well Room
No.3. This project involved process design of relief devices, high
pressure flowline piping, associated field-mounted
instruments/valves, structural steel design, and electrical systems to
support downhole electric submersible pumps.
• Chugach Electric Association: Lead specifications development to
support the upgrade of the turbine control system for Unit 5 gas
turbine system at Beluga River Station.
• Alaska District of the US Army Corps of Engineers: Construction
administration services in support of the Ft Wainwright Central Heat
and Power Plant Emissions Reduction Project. Responsibilities for this
major baghouse collector construction project included vendor data
review, review and approval of contractor commissioning and
Moora Feb 08 4
compliance plans, as well as gathering commissioning data and
compiling performance evaluations.
• Golden Valley Electric Association: Preparation of proposal
documents to execute fast-track engineering at GVEA’s North Pole
Station for the addition of LM6000 combustion turbines, HRSG and
related combined-cycle equipment. Evaluation led to making the
short-list of candidate engineering-design contractors.
• Business Development & Marketing Coordination: Responsible for
business development and technical liaison with staff of the following
energy sector companies.
Agrium Corp.
Alyeska Pipeline Services
Anchorage Municipal Light & Power
Aurora Energy
Chugach Electric
ConocoPhillips Alaska
Golden Valley Electric Assn.
Forest Oil Corp.
Marathon Oil Co.
Petrostar/ASRC Energy Services
Pioneer Resources
Udelhoven Oilfield Services
UNOCAL Alaska
Winstar/Ultrastar
Williams Alaska (Flint Hills Resources Alaska)
Process Engineer and Project Manager for the process design
optimization, air quality permitting requirements identification, capital and
operating cost estimates for the air-cooled condensers at Ft. Wainwright
AK Central Heating and Power Plan (CHPP). These dry coolers are
intended to condense steam turbine exhaust from four CHPP turbines, and
eliminate the use of the present cooling pond – a source of ice fog and
conventional fog.
Project Manager developing heat and material balances for El Paso
Energy’s Sturgis Amine Unit. HYSYS simulation of the amine unit was
used to generate the multiple balances for acid gas removal from raw
natural gas. He was also responsible for developing a Process Flow
Diagram (PFD), developing the heat and material balance, submittal of
related engineering deliverables
Project Manager for the preparation of engineering documents and bid
package components for Eielson AFB, AK Emissions Reduction Project.
Moora Feb 08 5
The system design included baghouse collector design and specification
for the removal of flyash from the flue gas generated from six (6) coal-
fired spreader stoker boilers. Responsibilities also included the preparation
of Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Plan for the baghouse
collectors, and developing a strategy for avoiding New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), as well as avoiding regulatory
applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New
Source Review (NSR) requirements.
Project Manager for the assessment of Emery Gasification’s plans for
converting a coal-fired steam generator in Idaho Falls, ID to commercial
electrical generation. He also provided an execution plan for the phased
engineering of the project, a capital cost estimate, and a schedule.
Project Manager and Lead Investigator for a multi-source Air Quality
Construction Permit Application to the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation for Ft. Wainwright Army Base. Mr. Moora was
responsible for all aspects of this application covering four (4)
modifications to Ft. Wainwright’s emissions inventory, including a coal-
fired boiler upgrade, the addition of fabric filters to the Central Heat and
Power Plant, a new 32 hospital and the air emissions from on-going
CERCLA clean-up of contaminated soil and groundwater. Mr. Moora
developed the permit strategy resulting in avoiding a detailed Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and New Source Review (NSR)
application process.
Lead Engineer on a technical evaluation and conceptual designs for
remediation of ice fog and ground fog formation resulting from power
plant cooling pond operation in an arctic climate. Candidate solutions
included air-cooled steam condensers, air-cooled circulation water coolers
and ice storage systems.
Project Manager/Lead Engineer for a detailed design review and quality
assurance check of steam generator refurbishment package developed for
Ft. Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant.
Project Manager/Lead Engineer for conceptual design, detailed design and
specification of fabric filter collectors and related systems on 6 coal-fired
steam generators at Ft. Wainwright, AK, Army base. Responsibilities
included the development of engineering conditions of service, P&IDs,
military specifications. Project also included preparation of environmental
documents including CAM Plan and air quality regulatory survey.
Lead Process Engineer for field investigation of internal pipeline corrosion
and related NGL processing problems caused by Sulfate Reducing
Bacteria. Developed field sampling and monitoring program to
identify/quantify extent of problem in 100+ mile pipeline in Wyoming.
Moora Feb 08 6
Lead Process Engineer/Project Manager for technical & economic
feasibility analysis for application of amine-based tail gas unit retrofit for
the following facilities. Work resulted in the execution of a Technical
Services Agreement with ExxonMobil Research & Engineering in support
of their FLEXSORB solvent technology.
Chevron (now ChevronTexaco) Products Inc., Pascagoula MS Refinery
Chevron USA, Carter Creek Gas Plant, Evanston, WY
TOSCO (now ConocoPhillips) Corp., Wilmington CA Refinery
TOSCO Corp., San Francisco Area Refinery
Valero Energy, Paulsboro NJ Refinery
Clark Oil Co., Blue Island IL Refinery
Lead Process Engineer on landfill gas supply and processing investigation.
Field investigation aimed at identification of supply interruptions
associated with gas compressors, and SELEXOL acid gas removal.
Lead Process Engineer and Project Manager for technical assessment of
mechanical vapor compression process for desalination of seawater.
Responsible for process simulation, heat and material balances,
thermodynamics analysis, heat transfer system analysis, market study
and risk analysis.
Lead Process Engineer for process engineering operations assistance
study for ExxonMobil’s sour, high CO2 natural gas processing plant in
southwest Wyoming. Responsible for process modification investigations
involving triethylene glycol dehydration unit to boost throughput, reduce
glycol contamination, and absorber carryover losses.
Lead Process Engineer for chiller alternatives study associated with a
batch biotechnology process. Quantified future refrigeration loads,
selected optimum coolant and temperature, and identified process design
alternatives for facility expansion.
Senior Engineer. Responsible for scale-up and design development for
Molten Metal Technology’s proprietary technology for treatment of various
waste types. Execution of conceptual and detailed design projects, both
in-house and within E&C contractor offices; checkout and start-up of
commercial facilities and management of technology development teams.
Successful assignments included:
• Managed development team of engineers and technicians running
demonstration-scale platforms for tapping molten liquids from MMT’s
Catalytic Extraction Process. Successfully demonstrated concepts
using induction heated valves and sacrificial materials for
deinventory/intermittent liquid phase removal.
Moora Feb 08 7
• Prepared proposal and accompanying engineering documents for
DOE’s largest privatized remediation project at the Hanford
Reservation, in partnership with Lockheed Martin Corp. Award of
project resulted in execution of first phase conceptual engineering to
produce a non-leachable glass product, recyclable syngas and metal
ingots. Developed process design package including reactor, gas
injection, contaminated iron preparation, pneumatic transfer, NaOH
recovery, glass/metal tapping and glass annealing systems.
• Prepared process engineering package and permitting documents for
the design, procurement and construction of a pilot unit to treat
Hanford waste surrogate materials.
Senior Engineer and Project Manager. Management of engineering
disciplines executing federal environmental restoration projects for clients
such as EPA, DOE, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Key
assignments included:
• Managing engineering team responsible for firm’s first major detailed
design encompassing procurement level engineering package.
Deliverables included PFDs, P&IDs, equipment and instrument data
sheets, civil & site drawings, piping general arrangements,
specifications for civil/structural, site prep, buildings,
extraction/inject wells, piping, electrical, instrumentation, and
utilities.
• Responsible for developing a program for training process
engineering staff in engineering procedures and documents
associated with detailed design projects. Engineering procedures
produced for PFDs, P&IDs, Equipment Conditions of Service,
Instrument Index and Electrical Load List.
• Produced detailed Quality Assurance Program, including QC
Procedures for use on USEPA engineering design projects. System
included the development of a project document and control-tracking
database for generating audit trails on Remedial Designs. System
presently being tested for use in CDM’s national network of offices.
Provided consulting services including:
• Engineering consulting services for preparation of air quality permit
documents and emission inventories under the 1990 Amendments to
the Clean Air Act.
• Retained to assist in final design, start-up and operation of RUST's
soil washing pilot plant at WMX Technologies R&D headquarters in
Clemson, SC. During the final phases of construction, was
responsible for finalizing design P&ID's, composing operations
manuals, training plant operators and completing the mechanical,
Moora Feb 08 8
electrical and instrument checkout of the plant. Also set-up and
configured the data acquisition and control system for use with
conventional PLC I/O and PC. Following the startup of the plant,
supervised one of the three shifts responsible for plant operation and
meeting the performance criteria established by DOE and EG&G,
Idaho.
• Finalized permitting documents for client's planned treatment,
storage and disposal facility in Florida. Prepared technical and
engineering submittals in response to regulatory review of RCRA,
NPDES and Air Quality Permits for this project. Was responsible for
conducting studies regarding probable metals emissions for a
regional RCRA incinerator, currently under construction.
Manager of Engineering and co-founder of a start-up company for the
commercialization of photocatalysis technology used for the removal of
organics and metals from aqueous solutions. Mr. Moora was involved in
intellectual property review and licensing, obtaining venture-backed
financing and conceptual process design. He was responsible for
engineering, design and construction of a prototype unit used for
treatability tests. He prepared a successful proposal to the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory for funding of a commercial-scale
photocatalysis unit.
Senior Engineer and Manager of Permitting with Waste-Tech Services, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Amoco Oil Corporation. Responsible for
process design and the securing of RCRA and Air Quality permits for a
grass-roots regional incinerator project in Florida. Responsibilities
included:
• Managing engineering and environmental contractors.
• Developing conceptual designs, flow sheets, material and energy
balances to define process cycles for waste feed systems, air
pollution control and incineration systems.
• Composing RCRA permit documents including sections for Waste
Analysis Plan, Reporting and Record keeping, Groundwater
Monitoring and Engineering Reports.
• Communicating with regulatory personnel, legal staff, community
support staff and legislative lobbyists, interacting with local citizen
groups in public forums.
• Emissions inventories, air dispersion modeling and risk assessment
calculations.
General Manager and Founder of a start-up environmental laboratory to
perform chemical analyses of waters, soils and wastes using EPA
Moora Feb 08 9
methods. He recruited initial laboratory management, trained
administrative staff, developed the accounting systems and was
responsible for overall administrative management of the facility. He also
acted as temporary sales and marketing director for approximately six
months, until staff could be added in this area. The laboratory quickly
expanded to a profitable multi-million dollar business within two years.
Mr. Moora was a Director, Treasurer and Secretary of the corporation until
its sale in early 1994.
Assistant Manager of Commissioning responsible for checkout and
start-up of a world-class natural gas processing plant in southwestern
Wyoming for Exxon USA. Mr. Moora supervised the daily activities of
approximately 25 engineers and designers in all technical disciplines. He
was also responsible for project tracking and reporting to the client on a
weekly basis.
Lead Process Engineer, Exxon LaBarge Dehydration Facility. Responsible
for detailed process design documents for a 500 MMSCFD glycol
dehydration plant for high CO2 natural gas. Plant included triethylene
glycol dehydration process, utility systems, corrosion inhibitor storage and
transmission systems, as well as a unique low-BTU flare stack with
combustion assist gas.
Lead Process Engineer, Petroleum and Petrochemicals Division.
Supervision of process engineers during conceptual design and detailed
design of various gas treating, chemical, energy, pollution abatement and
other projects. Responsible for compiling process conditions of service,
flow sheets, equipment specifications, operating manuals and emissions
estimates for environmental permits. Also responsible for client
interaction involving design approval and monitoring of monthly progress.
Process Engineer, Environmental Sciences Division. Prepared design
documents and studies for diverse projects including SO2 scrubbers for
large power plants, NOx control systems and pilot facilities for air and
water pollution control systems. Lead Process Engineer and Startup
Engineer for the first catalytic NOx control unit on a coal-fired boiler in the
US.
Process Engineer responsibilities included project engineering for
numerous wastewater and air pollution control facilities, encompassing
field sampling, data analysis, report publication and client meetings. As
part of his duties, Mr. Moora sized and designed various conventional
pollution control unit operations, including activated sludge systems,
aerated lagoons, clarifiers, adsorption columns, scrubbers, absorbers,
baghouses and electrostatic precipitators.
Moora Feb 08 10
EMPLOYMENT
Molten Metals Technology, Inc.
Camp, Dresser & McKee
MWM Consulting Services
Clearflow Inc.
Waste-Tech Services, Inc. (adba: Ecova Corp.)
Vista Laboratories, Inc (now Analytica Group)
Stearns-Roger Engineering Corp. (adba: Stearns-Catalytic, United
Engineers, Raytheon Engineers and Constructors, Washington Group,
URS)
Catalytic, Inc.
LICENSES AND CERTIFICATION
Professional Engineer Registration, Colorado
Registered Environmental Manager
University of Alaska, Arctic Engineering Short Course, November 2001
Currently enrolled in Project Management Institute training for PMP
certification
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Gas Processors Association
Project Management Institute
Society of Petroleum Engineers
TECHNICAL PAPERS
"The Design of a Commercial RCRA Incinerator - Where the Regulations Are
Taking Us", Presented at the Colorado Hazardous Waste Management Society,
Fall 1991, Denver, CO.
“Design and Environmental Permitting Challenges for the Ft. Wainwright, Alaska
Power Plant Fabric Filter System”, Presented at the Air and Waste Management
Association Conference, Orlando FL, June 24 - 28 2001.
R Fedich, D McCaffrey, M Moora and R Ungs, “Upgrade Your Tail Gas Treating
Unit With FLEXSORB SE Plus”, Paper presented at the 2003 Brimstone Sulfur
Recovery Symposia, Vail Colorado, September 2003.
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
1225 E. International Airport Road, Suite 205, Anchorage, AK 99518, tel. 907.561.0790, fax 907.563.8219, www.estimations.com
Firm Profile
Estimations, Inc., an Alaskan firm, formed in 1993 to provide construction management support
services to the design community with an emphasis on project cost controls. The principal and
staff provide personalized service and accurate estimates. Their experience includes
commercial and industrial facilities, academic facilities, schools, health care, research facilities,
housing, correctional facilities and transportation projects. They have project history with clients
in the public, private, and military sectors of the industry. Their experience is with new,
renovation and addition projects and is in the rural and urban centers of Alaska. It is in the Arctic
and in the sub-Arctic. Estimations’ experience includes projects on the highway system and
those only accessible by plane or barge. Estimations has earned widespread recognition as
qualified and experienced construction cost estimators.
Estimations is a carefully selected team of experienced and versatile industry professionals
collectively providing comprehensive estimating skills. The staff of Estimations has a combined
75+ years of estimating experience in Alaska. Their in-house team includes four professional
Estimators with three having more than 20 years of cost estimating experience in Alaska. In
addition, there is support staff to provide administrative, clerical and customer assistance
throughout the project.
Additional services include Life Cycle Costing, Project Analysis Reports, Critical Path
Scheduling (CPM), Condition and Inventory Survey Support and Master Planning.
They have provided Life Cycle Costing and Economic Analysis including more than 15 schools
using the Department of Early Education Development format, North Slope Borough projects,
Kachemak Bay Research Facility, Fairbanks Parking Structure, Air Force Operations Center,
and the St. Paul Health Clinic
Estimating Approach
Estimates require quantifying the scope of the project and pricing the elements as accurately as
possible. Pricing is done utilizing current pricing of materials, labor, and contractor markups
where possible. In addition, they utilize historic data for comparative pricing and quality control
benchmarks in the estimating of projects.
In quantifying the scope of the projects, their efforts focus beyond just the use of measure and
counting. Quantification at early stages is produced by modeling and parametric methods, using
a combination of historic data and engineering tools and determining accurate answers to cost
questions early in the project. They produce easy to understand analyses.
Estimations, Inc. produces cost estimates in the format desired by the client, typically in a
master format CSI system by trade or the Uni-format systems approach. Their senior estimators
have 20+ years of experience estimating construction costs in Alaska. In addition to their
experience, they verify current costs, track the construction industry locally and nationally, verify
information with product vendors and local representatives as well as monitoring local labor and
market conditions.
1225 E. International Airport Road, Suite 205, Anchorage, AK 99518, tel. 907.561.0790, fax 907.563.8219, www.estimations.com
JAY N. LAVOIE
Principal Construction Cost Estimator
Mr. Lavoie specializes in providing conceptual and budget estimates as well as detailed final estimates for
cost control during design. He has provided cost estimating and scheduling services to the Alaska design
and construction community for more than 26 years. This includes involvement in over 2,200 projects
throughout the state, including Educational Facilities, Community Centers and Administration Facilities,
Federal and State Facilities, Airports & Industrial Complexes, and Health Care & Research Facilities.
These projects have involved all the various disciplines and have been used for planning and budgeting
as well as full design and construction. Mr. Lavoie’s estimating experience includes master plans;
condition surveys; and design options comparison; as well as new, design/build, renovation, addition, and
replacement projects.
Projects such as this require more than just good communications with the designers. It requires an
experienced estimator that can anticipate beyond the information available. Mr. Lavoie has earned
widespread recognition as a qualified and experienced construction cost estimator. He has developed
modeling methods to assist in early cost development and engineering rule-based approximations to the
specific demands of a facility or engineering system. These models provide reliable results at a
conceptual level, and have proven to be invaluable in supporting work in value engineering sessions.
In quantifying the scope of a project, Mr. Lavoie’s efforts focus beyond just the use of measure and
counting. Quantification at early stages is produced by modeling and parametric methods, using a
combination of historic data and engineering tools. Pricing is done utilizing current pricing of materials,
labor and contractor markups. In addition, he utilizes historic data for comparative pricing and quality
control benchmarks in the estimating of a project. Mr. Lavoie develops customized spreadsheets and
databases to reflect the customer’s individual coding and reporting requirements. He works with the
design team to provide the owner a design that meets the program needs while maximizing the budget
available.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
The Foraker Group, Pre-Development Program budget level and building condition survey (BCS) projects
statewide for non-profits organizations: Multi Agency Children's Advocacy Facility, Maniilaq Family Crisis
Center BCS, LeeShore BCS, AWARE BCS, Pratt Museum Site/Facility Assessment, Nome Consortium
Library, STAR Tennant Relocation, Remodel & Expansion
Dept. of Education & Early Development School Capital Funding projects include BCS, renovation,
renovation & addition, and replacements options compared along with Life Cycle Costs. 2008 locations:
Chefornak, Galena, Kivalena, and Koliganek.
Alaska Villages ECM Study
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation Energy Audits
North Slope Borough School Project Analysis Reports and Life Cycle Costing
EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS
Education: Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering University of Alaska Fairbanks
American Society of Professional Estimators Association for Advancement of Cost Engineering
REFERENCES
Chris Kowalczewski The Foraker Group Pre-Development Program (907) 743.1203
Glen Kravitz Rise Alaska (907) 455.8114
Barbara Turner North Slope Borough, Public Works/CIPM Div. (907) 561.6605
Chinook Wind 6571 Lunde Rd. Everson, WA 98247
Phone: 360-398-2862 Fax: 360-398-2871
info@chinookwind.net
Proposal for Assessment of
Wind, Hydro, and Solar
Resources and Project
Feasibility for Chugach School
District
Presented To: PDC Inc. Engineers
Date: November 6, 2008
Version: 01
1
Proposal for Assessment of Wind, Hydro, and Solar Resources and
Project Feasibility for Chugach School District
Introduction
PDC Inc. Engineers (PDC) has a long-standing relationship with local architectural
firm Bezek Durst Seiser (BDS), which is serving as Prime Consultant to the Chugach
School District (CSD) to prepare a proposal to the Alaska Energy Authority’s
Renewable Energy Fund.1
PDC has requested that Chinook provide proposed task descriptions and budgetary
estimates for Data Gathering, Analysis and Evaluation of wind, hydro, and solar
resources in the Tatitlek, Chenega Bay and Whittier communities as technical
contributions for Reconnaissance and Feasibility phases of project development.
The AEA application specifies work in the following project phases:
Phase 1 – Reconnaissance: A preliminary feasibility study designed to ascertain
whether a feasibility study is warranted.
Phase II – Feasibility Analysis, Resource Assessment, Conceptual Design: Detailed
evaluation intended to assess technical, economic, financial, and
operational viability and to narrow focus of final design and construction.
Phase III – Final Design and Permitting: Project configuration and specifications that
guide construction. Land use and resource permits and leases required for
construction.
Phase IV – Construction, Commissioning, Operation, and Reporting: Completion o f
project construction and beginning of operations. It also includes follow-up
O&M reporting requirements.
The current proposal addresses the first two phases only.
Chinook will oversee a team of consultants to contribute complementary skills and
industry expertise to complete this project. After reviewing site information and data
gathered, Chinook will form professional opinions regarding the resource potential,
project feasibility, and expected performance. To the extent possible, we will form our
opinions from objective documentation and evidence. However, we will also interpret
information received in the light of our industry experience, and so some subjective
professional judgment will be exercised in forming our opinions.
This proposal only covers an independent resource assessment and site evaluation,
including a limited review of project documentation, balance of plant estimates and
constructability. Chinook is capable of providing full due diligence review of other
aspects of the project including permits, civil works and foundation design, electrical
system design, contracts, land leases and title commitments, turbine selection,
construction bids, and other project details as needed. If PDC is interested in further
due diligence review, Chinook can prepare separate proposals for additional tasks.
1.0 Reconnaissance
Chinook will conduct the following tasks to assist PDC in conducting a
Reconnaissance study for CSD:
1 www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html
2
1.1 Initial Research & Information Collection
Chinook will participate in PDC’s efforts to clarify the project’s scope of work, finalize
contracts and fees, and prepare for and attend (via teleconference) the team kick-off
meeting.
1.2 Desktop & GIS Review
As preparation for field work, Chinook will conduct in-depth desktop review of all
existing data and information about wind, hydro, and solar resources in the Tatitlek,
Chenega Bay and Whittier communities as well as the schools’ electricity rates and
use. Chinook will compile and review nearby reference data, such as airport data,
historical publicly available data, and other reference stations. Chinook consultants
will prepare and review detailed GIS maps for each area of interest covering terrain
and ground cover.
1.3 Site Visits
An experienced Chinook subcontractor will visit the proposed project areas along with
representatives of PDC, BDS, and/or CSD if desired. The goal of the site visits is to
gain a first-hand appreciation of the terrain, ground cover, obstacles to the wind and
solar access, water flow rates, prevailing wind direction, constraints on project layout,
and any other relevant site-specific factors that may affect the resource assessment
and project constructability. During the site visits, Chinook will investigate options for
placement and configuration of monitoring equipment and associated
instrumentation.
1.4 Prepare Recommendations for Detailed Data Collection Plans
Based on our preliminary review and site visits, Chinook will provide recommended
data collection approaches for each resource (wind, solar and hydro) at selected sites
in each of the three CSD communities. If sufficient Class 5 or above wind resources
are identified, wind monitoring equipment may consist of “micro” (1-2 kW) wind
turbines with production meters rather than specialized meteorological towers
typically used to verify wind resources for large-scale commercial wind farms.
Similarly, long-term detailed solar and hydro monitoring may not be warranted as
state funds may be better applied toward initial test generation equipment. Chinook
will scope out and source recommended data collection equipment for this phase of
project development.
1.5 Oversee Installation of Monitoring Equipment
Chinook will assist in overseeing the procurement and installation of recommended
monitoring equipment to ensure accurate data collection in all three communities.
1.6 Collect & Process Data
Chinook will collect and tabulate data from the wind, solar and hydro monitoring
equipment and will perform routine reviews for quality control to ensure sensors are
operating correctly, including checks for periods of ice accumulation and sensor
degradation or failure.
1.7 Data Validation
Chinook will validate and analyze data collected from the monitoring equipment to
produce high quality datasets. Chinook will filter data to eliminate the effect of tower
shading on individual anemometers, utilizing information gained during the site visit
to support this task. Chinook will calculate all necessary statistics of the resource
data including monthly and annual average wind speed, solar insolation, and water
flow rates; wind roses; diurnal variation; wind shear coefficients; and a joint wind
speed-direction frequency distribution table. Chinook will extrapolate wind data from
3
measurement heights to typical hub heights for commercially available wind turbines
suited for the sites. Other heights can be calculated if desired.
Chinook will regress a time series of concurrent reference data with the time series of
on-site data to determine the correlation between the two data sets. Chinook will then
determine if the uncertainty in the long-term average annual resource estimates can
be reduced by adjusting the on-site data to match long-term conditions at the
reference site. If so, Chinook will make the appropriate adjustments. If not, Chinook
will document the correlation and explain reasons for not adjusting the on -site data.
1.8 Develop Energy Estimates
Chinook will utilize the data summaries developed for each site monitored to calculate
annual gross energy production expected from generation equipment and then apply
appropriate loss assumptions developed through the site visits to determine net
capacity factors and annual energy output expected. Loss factors that Chinook will
consider will include topographic efficiency, equipment availability, electrical
efficiency, icing and degradation, utility curtailment downtime, grid maintenance, high
wind hysteresis, and high and low temperature shutdown. Once Chinook has
calculated the system’s net annual energy, we will develop a 12x24 matrix to show the
average production for a given hour of the day in a given month of the year.
Chinook will assist PDC in selecting proposed specific project locations, sizes, and
conceptual configurations as well as in preparing estimates for e ach recommended
system.
1.9 Prepare Resource Assessment Summary Report
Chinook will assist PDC in examining the projects’ viability and selecting final projects
for further review, compiling all research conducted in the Reconnaissance phase into
a formal report.
2.0 Feasibility Study
Chinook Wind will conduct the following tasks to assist PDC with the Phase II
Feasibility Analysis, providing a detailed evaluation intended to further assess
technical, economic, financial, and operational viability of a p roject and to narrow
the focus of final design and construction.
2.1 Economic Analysis
Chinook Wind will participate in PDC’s efforts to clarify the Phase II scope of work for
each project, establish schedule and goals, and prepare for and attend (via
teleconference) the team kick-off and coordination meetings.
Chinook will assist PDC in developing the schematic design and detailed cost estimate
for each project and assist in resolving any issues encountered. Chinook will conduct
a limited review of project documentation provided by PDC, including balance of plant
estimates and other financial assumptions in the projects’ pro formas. Chinook will
evaluate the projects’ constructability based on site factors and project development
status. Chinook will provide an opinion about the suitability of selected sites and the
likelihood of successful project development, and examine any major risks and
mitigation strategies.
2.2 Prepare Recommendations for Project Design and Construction
Chinook will provide recommendations for design and construction of selected
projects, including adjustments in project parameters as appropriate.
4
2.3 Assist in drafting Operational and Business Plan
Chinook will provide recommendations for the projects’ operations and business plans
to achieve success, including adjustments to cost estimates and pro formas as needed.
2.4 Provide Summary for Feasibility Study Report
The final deliverable for this project will be a report outlining findings from Chinook’s
assessment of the selected sites. Report generation will also include technical checking
of any pertinent recommendations by experienced Chinook personnel other than the
primary author(s). The report will be issued as a DRAFT report which PDC may review
and comment on. The comments will be incorporated with due regard for Chinook’s
independent professional judgment, after which the report will be issued as FINAL.
Heather E. Rhoads-Weaver
11824 Vashon Hwy SW, Vashon Island, WA 98070 | 206-567-5466 | heather@chinookwind.net
PROFILE Ms. Rhoads-Weaver has more than 13 years of experience in wind energy program
management and advocacy, specializing in initiating and building sustainable ventures,
providing funding development, public affairs, market research and business
management consulting. Drawing on lessons learned with numerous U.S. federal and
state funding programs designed to build wind generation markets, Ms. Rhoads-Weaver
provides expertise with a broad range of development issues. She has designed,
launched and managed dozens of energy-related outreach and analysis project work
plans funded by the USDA, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human
Services, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Bullitt
Foundation, the California Energy Commission, the New York State Energy Research &
Development Authority, the Energy Trust of Oregon, and others. Ms. Rhoads-Weaver
has managed fund development and stakeholder involvement for the Small Wind
Certification Corporation, a project of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, and was
awarded the 2006 "Small Wind Advocate of the Year" by DOE/NREL’s Wind Powering
America Program. She served as American Wind Energy Association's Small Wind
Advocate for 5 years, was the founding Executive Director for Northwest Sustainable
Energy for Economic Development (SEED), and previously worked as Program Manager
for Global Energy Concepts, Senior Outreach Coordinator for the National Wind
Coordinating Committee, and lobbyist for Iowa Citizen Action Network.
EDUCATION University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA | 1995
Master of Science, Environmental Science
Graduate fellowship research on solar radon reduction and wind turbine acoustics,
emphasis on energy analysis; courses in environmental technology, policy, geology,
biology, and physics.
Wesleyan University Middletown, CT | 1992
Master of Science, Environmental Science
Interdisciplinary degree in politics of science and technology; courses in economics,
energy resources, earth science, policy, sociology; thesis on sustainable housing.
EXPERIENCE eFormative Options LLC Vashon Island, WA | 2005-present
Founder and Principal
Conducting management, public affairs and market research consulting and initiating
community and cooperative development to enhance local economies and guide
energy choices through the formation and growth of sustainable ventures. Clients
have included the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Interstate Renewable
Energy Council, Canadian Wind Energy Assn., Horizon Energy, Southwest
Windpower, JCR Development Company, Entegrity Wind Systems, Chinook Wind,
Global Energy Concepts, Coastal Community Action Program, Windustry, and
others.
American Wind Energy Association Seattle, WA | 2001 — Feb. 2006
Small Wind Advocate Consultant
Conducted industry surveys, oversaw grant-funded projects, and supported AWEA’s
Small Turbine Committee and national small wind certification efforts. Conducted
first-ever Global Home & Farm Wind Market Survey, launched Small Wind Pavilion at
annual WINDPOWER conference, and prepared recommendations for USDA Section
9006 program. Managed the Small Wind Advocate Team of subcontractors
producing publications and Communications Toolbox, including permitting
handbooks, case studies, fact sheets, state-by-state policy summary web pages, and
an online graphics library. Assisted with federal and state-level policy efforts, media
outreach, and funding applications.
Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic DevelopmentSeattle, WA I 2000 - 2004
Executive Director
Founded Northwest SEED and served as first Executive Director. Focused on
maximizing local benefits from harvesting “home grown” power resources,
emphasizing rural landowner outreach, fostering dialogue among diverse
stakeholders, and developing financing approaches to supply distributed green
power. Launched, secured funding for and managed Northwest Wind Mapping
Project and Our Wind Co-op. Oversaw development efforts to strengthen
partnerships and alliances to engage and build support among rural communities,
Tribes, public utilities and rural coops for decentralized clean, affordable and reliable
energy. Also served as consultant for the Renewable Northwest Project, Climate
Solutions, and the Northwest Cooperative Development Center launching numerous
undertakings, including Harvesting Clean Energy conferences, the Last Mile Electric
Cooperative, and Kittitas Citizens Alliance for Renewable Energy Solutions.
Northwest Energy Coalition Seattle, WA I 2000 — 2001
Policy Associate
Developed policy proposals, educated policymakers on sustainable energy
investments, evaluated green power offerings, and represented regional alliance of
nearly 100 environmental, consumer, low income and public interest groups in
regulatory and utility proceedings.
Global Energy Concepts Seattle, WA I 1999 — 2000
Program Manager and Senior Analyst,
Managed technical support and outreach for Wind Turbine Verification Program
(TVP), sponsored by U.S. DOE and Electric Power Research Institute. Primary
author and editor of numerous annual, quarterly, and monthly reports for multiple
utility-scale wind power projects. Reviewed and evaluated performance and
meteorological data and other project documentation. Drafted proposals, work plans,
and budgets; directed business marketing activities; and managed tasks of staff and
consultants to ensure deliverables were completed in a timely manner.
RESOLVE Seattle, WA I 1997 — 1998
National Wind Coordinating Committee Senior Outreach Coordinator
Directed NWCC’s collaborative activities, working groups, subcontractors, and
outreach initiatives. Helped build relationships among NWCC members, facilitated
dialogue on key issues impacting wind power development, and negotiated landmark
consensus products. Mediated concerns and facilitated completion of NWCC’s wind
facility permitting handbook, issue paper series, state policy options report,
transmission issues reports, green marketing papers, distributed wind development
report, and avian metrics document. Coordinated release of RFPs and consultant
selection. Secured and managed $560K budget representing 38% increase over
previous funding level. Established and supervised development of website and
listservs, workplans, and stakeholder database containing 1350 contacts with
participation records.
HER Energy Consulting Iowa City, IA |1997 — 1999
Energy Consultant
Coordinated Building Operator and Energy Bank Analyst Trainings for Iowa
Department of Natural Resources. Consulted on various energy-related projects;
conducted research; advised on policy issues; and developed proposals and contract
bids.
John Vanden Bosche
6571 Lunde Rd., Everson, WA 98247 | phone: 360-398-2862 | e-mail: John@ChinookWind.net
PROFILE Mr. Vanden Bosche has 17 years of experience in the wind industry with involvement in a
broad range of projects. He has worked on basic engineering research, wind turbine design
and analysis, component manufacturing, structural and performance field testing, turbine
verification, due diligence investigations, project planning and construction, commissioning
testing, operations and maintenance, and design of retrofits. He also has experience with
procuring land leases, collecting and analyzing wind resource data, and calculating project
performance projections. He has lived and worked on wind energy projects in Tehachapi,
California, Palm Springs, California, El Paso, Texas, and South Wales, United Kingdom. Past
clients include turbine manufacturers, component vendors, project developers, electrical
utilities, government laboratories, and law firms. Mr. Vanden Bosche is a registered U.S.
Patent Agent with 10 years of experience obtaining patent protection on inventions
representing a variety of technologies.
EDUCATION: University of Texas at El Paso El Paso, Texas | 1996
Master of Science, Mechanical Engineering
Thesis topic was Control Strategy Options for Variable Speed Wind Turbines.
West Virginia University Morgantown, West Virginia | 1989
Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering
EXPERIENCE: Chinook Wind 2001 – present
Principal Engineer
Developed a new business providing engineering consulting services to the wind industry.
Services provided include wind turbine design, testing, and analysis, owner engineering,
performance monitoring and evaluation, wind data collection and analysis, site selection,
due diligence, and project management. Clients include project developers, wind turbine
manufacturers, independent power producers, utilities, and government research
laboratories.
U.S. Patent Agent 1991 - Present
Self Employed
Built and ran a small but profitable business as a registered U.S. Patent Agent. Clients are
from industry and academia and represent a wide variety of technologies.
Global Energy Concepts 1998 –2001
Project Engineer
Worked with clients in the wind industry on a variety of projects providing technical advice
regarding power curve measurements, turbine commissioning, SCADA system planning,
design, and installation, evaluation of wind turbine retrofit options, investigation of
lightning damage and icing effects, and development of operation and maintenance
strategies. Provided contract review and due diligence services to utilities and wind plant
developers. Also served as Principal Investigator in a research project investigating
methods for self-erection of wind turbines.
Dynamic Design 1996 –1998
Senior Engineer
Provided engineering consulting services to the wind energy industry in California and to
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. A major focus of the work was field testing of
wind turbines. Performed loads and dynamics tests on six turbines ranging in size from
100 kW to 500 kW. Contributed conceptual ideas and practical field experience to the
design team working on the Wind Eagle, an innovative highly flexible wind turbine. Also
provided services in modeling, analysis, evaluation, and documentation of wind turbine
designs.
University of Texas at El Paso 1994 - 1996
Research Assistant
Assisted with several state and federally funded research projects in the area of wind
energy. The research was in the areas of meteorology and site characterization and
development of a variable speed rotor. Led a team developing a variable speed wind
turbine and controller.
Wind Harvest Company 1991 - 1993
Project Engineer
Built, tested and analyzed prototypes of three different models of the Windstar, an
innovative vertical axis wind turbine. Installed a wind farm in South Wales, UK. Work in
the UK involved wind site prospecting, meteorological data analysis, and negotiating land
leases.
PROFESSIONAL Board of Directors for Northwest SEED
SERVICE Member of IEC Power Performance Testing Standard Committee
Member of Technical Committee for 2002 Global Windpower Conference
Wind resource assessment subcommittee of the Idaho State Wind Working Group
Kenneth B. Winnick
15307 15th Avenue NE #6 Shoreline, WA 98155
206-440-5876 home | 425.241.2409 work | Ken@chinookwind.net
PROFILE Mr. Winnick is an innovative technical consultant with 20 years of experience focused on
the development and use of analytical frameworks and information systems to analyze a
wide variety of economic, environmental, energy and social issues. He has developed
and managed GIS (Geographic Information System) and Data Analysis Groups at major
Fortune-1000 firms and transit agencies, including CH2M HILL, URS Corporation, Tetra
Tech FW, and Sound Transit, and has performed business analysis and strategic
planning for numerous clients. He was a Board Member on the University of Washington
GIS Certificate Program from 2002-2007. Mr. Winnick has 15 years of extensive hands-
on and management experience in GIS and remote sensing. He developed and managed
three GIS Labs during 15 years for Tetra Tech, URS and Sound Transit. He is
experienced in GIS strategic planning and developing business case for information
system investments
EDUCATION University of Washington Foster School of Business Seattle, WA | 2006
Master of Business Administration
University of Oregon Foster School of Business Eugene, OR | 1981
Master of Science, Marine Ecology
Union College Schenectady, NY | 1976
Bachelors of Science, Marine Ecology
EXPERIENCE Winnick & Associates, LLC Shoreline, WA | current
GIS and Business Consultant
Provide GIS and economic evaluation services for various clients in academia, non-
profits, and business. Recent and current clients include GeoEducation & Research,
Earth Economics, Earth Systems, and the University of Washington. Mr. Winnick
also designs and builds information systems for renewable energy and renewable
resource companies.
CH2M HILL Bellevue, WS
Information Solutions Director, NW Region
Manager for the GIS and Information Solutions lines of business within the
Environmental Group. PM and lead tech on selected projects.
• Web-based GIS-Transportation Improvement Project demonstration project for
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Seattle, WA.
• GIS strategic planning for King County and for the Bunker Hill Superfund Site
(EPA).
• Environmental and hydrological database development to support FERC
environmental studies on multiple projects.
URS Corporation (previously Dames & Moore) Seattle, WA
GIS Manager
Developed and managed the GIS Group for the Northwest region. Leveraged growth
from a few existing Forest Service contracts to a million dollar per year operation.
Responsible for all management aspects of an eight-person work group.
• Developed the GIS and Database groups for SoundTransit Link Light Rail, under
contract with the PSTC (Puget Sound Transit Consultants) Joint Venture. This
enterprise information system integrated EIS development, engineering, and real
estate acquisition, and employed six staff members. Approximate project size,
$800,000.
• Procured and managed a $750,000 GIS based habitat prediction model for
Weyerhaeuser Corporation, in support of their Habitat Management Programs
(HMP/HCP).
• Managed a $300,000 GIS development and analysis project related to permitting
of the “Cross Cascades Pipeline Project” for Texaco Transportation and the
Olympic Pipeline Company (OLPC). The system provided for analysis and
mapping of water and environmental issues.
Tetra Tech FW (previously EBASCO) Bellevue, WA
GIS Manager
Developed and managed the first consultant based GIS Group in the Northwest.
Grew the group from a very small support operation to a group generating close to $1
million of revenue per year. Responsible for all management aspects of a six-person
work group. PM on multiple projects.
• Developed the GIS for the multidimensional May Creek Basin Plan for King
County. Integrated a variety of HEC & HSPF models.
• Developed and managed the GIS mapping and analysis for $6 million in Timber
Sale multidimensional EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) projects in Alaska.
A spectrum of environmental issues were considered in light of proposed timber
harvest planning.
• Managed development of a $250,000 GIS software system for ACOE (Army
Corps of Engineers) Missouri River Master Operating Manual Review and Update
SELECTED May Creek Basin Plan King County, Washington
PROJECTS Managed the GIS elements for this large, interdisciplinary basin study. Used GIS to
integrate hydrologic simulation (HSPF) and hydraulic (HEC-II) models to simulate existing
and future runoff, river flows, and flooding in the basin.
Polk Inlet EIS; Control Lake; Ushk Bay; and Eight Fathom EIS’s
USDA Forest Service, Ketchikan and Sitka, Alaska (4 separate projects)
GIS manager for these four large timber sale EIS projects. Worked closely with personnel
in the areas of timber inventory, transportation planning, watersheds, geomorphology,
soils, fisheries, wildlife, endangered species, non-forest vegetation, recreation,
economics, visual impacts, and subsistence issues. Developed numerous automated
procedures to support initial analyses, field work, road card generation, stand
management planning, and development of management alternatives.
Initial Watershed Assessment, Washington Department of Ecology
Managed the GIS for this project. GIS maps and procedures were developed to assess
the status and trends in water use, stream flow, water quality, and aquatic habitat in four
resource inventory areas in Washington state.
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review and Update,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha Division
Managed the development of a very large GIS vegetation and wildlife database along the
Missouri River, from Montana to the Mississippi River. The GIS was integrated with a
variety of river response models to evaluate hydro operations.
Ecological Economics Evaluation Seattle, WA
Earth Economics and King Conservation District
Performed GIS and modeling support for ecological economics evaluation of the King
County Conservation District in Washington. The KCD covers a majority of King County.
Bill Colgrove
2115 G St. Bellingham, WA 98225 | 360.224.0779 cell | 360.738.2144
PROFILE Mr. Colgrove has been involved in industrial construction since 1987, most recently as
Construction Services Manager at Matrix Service Company where he was responsible for
their capital projects general construction division, employing 70 staff and 400-500
craftsmen. In five years as division manager, annual revenue increased from $20 million
to more than $100 million. Mr. Colgrove was responsible for profit and loss analysis,
supervision of 10 project managers, as well as estimating, subcontracting, business
development and administrative staff. Prior to working as Construction Services
Manager, Mr. Colgrove also held positions of Project Manager, Instrumentation
Superintendent, Civil Superintendent, Mechanical/Equipment Superintendent, Estimator,
Subcontract Manager, Scheduler, and Field Engineer where he worked nationwide on
refinery, terminal, methane recovery power generation and polysilicon projects. Mr.
Colgrove has also worked for Kiewit Industrial Company as Loop Check Engineer, Civil
Superintendent, Subcontract Manager (electrical), and Estimator, on new construction of
refuse fired power generating station stations in California, Massachusetts, and Virginia,
and as a Field Engineer at Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
EDUCATION Washington State University Pullman, WA | 1987
Bachelor of Science, Construction Management
Bachelor of Arts, Business Administration
Cum Laude
EXPERIENCE Self-employed consultant Bellingham, WA | Current
Providing construction management and consulting services.
1991 – 2007 Matrix Service Company Bellingham, WA
Construction Services Manager (Division Manager)
Responsible for the capital projects general construction division, employing 70 staff
and 400-500 craftsmen. In 5 years as division manager, annual revenue increased
from $20 million to more than $100 million. Responsible for P&L, supervision of more
than 10 project managers, as well as estimating, subcontracting, business
development, and administrative staff, providing industrial general construction
services nationwide, on refinery, terminal, methane recovery power generation,
polysilicon, and other various projects. Other duties also included contract
negotiations, claims preparation and settlement negotiations.
Chevron Multiple locations, CA
Senior Project Manager, Midgrade & Ethanol Blending Project
Project consisted of converting eight of Chevron’s refined product terminals to
incorporate on-site blending of ethanol blend and mid-grade products. Duties
included supervision of three project managers overseeing the individual sites.
Included phased outages at each terminal to make final tie-ins and electrical
conversions. Value approximately $45 million.
Arco Bellingham, WA
Project Manager for New Dock Project
This project involved the construction of Arco’s new north wing to the existing tanker
dock near the Cherry Point Refinery. Duties included overall responsibility for the
site, daily management of superintendents, crews, and subcontractors, engineering
of crane lifts, cost and schedule forecasting, change order estimating and
negotiations, contract administration, and other misc. duties.
Solar Turbines Inc. Valdez, AK
Cogen Facility
Project included civil, foundation, building and finish work for a gas-fired turbine
generator system at the Petrostar Refinery site. Duties included supervision of
superintendent, crew and subcontractors.
Equilon Enterprises Anacortes, WA
Poly Reactor
Project included civil, piling, foundations, installation of a 260,000 lb reactor, and
associated structural steel, piping, and instrumentation at the Equilon refinery (now
Shell). Duties included supervision of superintendents, crews and subcontractors,
and engineering of critical crane lifts for reactor.
Advanced Silicon Materials (now REC Silicon) Moses Lake, WA
Plant Expansion Projects
This 3-year, $30 million project consisted of heavy industrial construction work
performed by 50 to 100 direct hire field employees and more than 60 subcontractors.
As Project Manager, duties included overall responsibility for the site, daily
management of superintendents and subcontractors, supervision of a seven person
office staff, and client relations and contract administration with the owner. As
Project Engineer, duties included all subcontract administration, supervision of
Quality Control, estimating, crane lift engineering, and other misc. duties.
Chevron Pasco, WA
Civil / Structural Superintendent for New Products Truck Loading Facility
Duties included direct supervision of civil, structural, small bore piping, and
instrumentation crews, materials procurement, administration of miscellaneous
subcontracts, survey/layout, and management of the project schedule.
Various Projects
Field Engineer / Subcontract Manager
Duties included procurement, quality control including visual inspections and weld
tracking, subcontract administration, project scheduling, surveying, instrumentation
loop checks, cad design work, and other misc. duties.
1988 – 1990 Kiewit Industrial Company Omaha, NE
Field Engineer
Idaho National Laboratory Idaho Falls, ID
SS Piping Project for Idaho
Duties included piping estimating and document control management on this $80
million project that consisted of more than 11,000 iso’s of piping.
Kiewit Omaha, NE
Estimator - Estimated structural steel and piping work.
Civil and mechanical estimates for various industrial projects
Ogden Martin Fairfax County, VA
Instrumentation Engineer for waste-fueled power generating station
Performed all status tracking of electrical and instrumentation work, as well as
assembly of instrumentation loop check packages and supervision and direction of
eight loop check teams commissioning more than 3,000 instruments on the largest
waste to energy power station in the United States.
Boyd H. Pro
2511 S Grand St., Seattle WA 98144 | 816.377.2557 | Boyd@chinookwind.net
PROFILE Mr. Pro provides technical consulting services for advanced and renewable energy
technologies, focusing primarily on wind energy, biomass and waste fuel technologies,
and energy for transportation. Over the past four years, Mr. Pro has been involved in
over 50 different renewable, advanced, and conventional energy projects, providing
services such as due diligence review, renewable portfolio development and integrated
resource planning, resource assessment, proposal evaluations, project identification,
economic feasibility studies, and RFP development, for clients including private
developers, banks, government organizations, community organizations, tribes, and
nearly 20 different US utilities. Mr. Pro received his degrees in Physics (B.S.) and
Environmental Studies (B.A.) from the University of Washington in 2004. He joined
Chinook Wind in January 2007 after working as a consultant and project scientist in the
Renewable Energy Group at Black & Veatch Corporation in Kansas City. He currently
splits most of his time between Chinook Wind and Convivium Renewable Energy, a
multidisciplinary consulting group that he helped found.
EDUCATION University of Washington Seattle, WA | 2004
Bachelor of Science, Physics
Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Studies
Minor, Mathematics
University coursework:
• Physics Coursework: Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism, Optics,
Quantum Mechanics, Circuits Lab, Advanced Electronics Lab.
• Environmental Studies Coursework: Energy and the Environment, Design for
Environment, Fuel Cell Design, Environmental Politics and Policy.
• Mathematics Coursework: Advanced Calculus, Differential Equations, Matrix
Algebra, Number and Set Theory, Field Theory, Probability and Statistics.
EXPERIENCE Chinook Wind Bellingham, WA | 2007 – present
Renewable Energy Consultant
Providing wind energy engineering analysis, specifically atmospheric data collection,
processing, validation, and analysis, including annual energy production estimation,
power output simulation, and computer modeling of potential and existing wind power
sites. Developed several database and statistical analysis tools for wind data
validation and analysis from met towers and SODAR.
Convivium Renewable Energy Bellingham, WA | 2008 – present
Wind Energy Analyst
Convivium Renewable Energy is a multi-disciplinary engineering group providing
technical consulting services for all renewable, advanced, and distributed energy
technologies. Mr. Pro provides technical support in the different areas of his
expertise; primarily wind, biomass, and energy for transportation.
Black & Veatch Corporation Overland Park, KS | Nov., 2004 – Dec., 2006
Project Scientist and Renewable Energy Consultant
Contributed to a variety of projects for clients around the world, with a focus on all
renewable technologies including biomass, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.
Clients included developers, utilities, banks, and government organizations. Project
scopes included integrated resource planning, resource assessment, advanced
technology feasibility studies, due diligence, site evaluation, and proposal
preparation. Leading technical specialist for biomass resource assessment and
technology evaluation.
COMPUTER WindFarmer, WindFarm, WAsP, Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access Visio,
SKILLS FrontPage, Labview, PowerMap, GIS
Experience with various programming languages including C, Visual Basic, Pascal, and
HTML. Knowledge of hardware and software configurations and computer networking
TerraSond Ltd
Terrestrial and Seafloor Mapping
1617 South Industrial Way Suite 3, Palmer, Alaska 99645
(907) 745-7215 x114 Office (907) 715-8144 Mobile
www.terrasond.com
David Oliver
Geophysicist
David Oliver has over 18 years of technical experience in the geotechnical and geophysical
industry. Recent work has been focused upon the development of in-stream hydrokinetic and
tidal renewable energy feasibility programs. These investigations have initially included
resource assessment, site selection, and hazard assessment. He is expert at program design, field
data collection, as well as the precise management and spatial analysis of remotely sensed data.
Mr. Oliver has knowledge of a wide variety of geophysical tools, investigative techniques, and
an in-depth understanding of physical science as applied to the Earth and its surface/subsurface.
Future efforts will include the static and dynamic modeling of these energetic systems for the
purpose of predicting hazard probability and power potential.