HomeMy WebLinkAboutRuth Lake Hydroelectric Project City of Petersburg App
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 21 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 21 9/3/2008
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of Petersburg, Alaska d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Type of Entity:
An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05. The City of Petersburg has full
control and ownership over Petersburg Municipal Power & Light, a public electric utility operating and serving the Mitkof
Island area in and around Petersburg, Alaska.
Mailing Address
PO Box 329
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Physical Address
11 South Nordic
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone
907-772-4203
Fax
907-772-9287
Email
pmpl@ci.petersburg.ak.us
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Joe Nelson
Title
Power & Light Superintendent
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 329
Petersburg, Alaska 99833-0329
Telephone
907-772-4203
Fax
907-772-9287
Email
pmpl@ci.petersburg.ak.us
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer, or
X A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If a
collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and
follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant
agreement.
Yes
1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached
grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the
application.)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 21 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 proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project is a conventional hydropower project that would
be located in an unincorporated area northeast of the City of Petersburg. PMPL proposes to
prepare and file an Application for Preliminary Permit with the FERC on February 1, 2008 and
an Application for License in 2011. Project phases include:
• Phase I – Pre-feasibility and Application for Preliminary Permit
• Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
• Phase III – Final Design and Permitting
• Phase IV – Construction and Project Start-up
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a one paragraph description of your project. At a minimum include the project location,
communities to be served, and who will be involved in the grant project.
The proposed project would be located in an unincorporated area, northeast of the City of
Petersburg, Alaska. Development of hydroelectric power at the site will include construction of
a lake tap, arch dam, unlined tunnel, power penstock, power plant, tailrace, and transmission
line segments.
Project features would include:
• Reservoir. Ruth Lake is fed primarily by rainfall and snowmelt, with some smaller firn or
hanging glaciers that contribute melt water during the summer months. . The Project
would include a dam to provide a potential usable stored capacity of 17,000 acre-feet.
• Lake Tap / Power Conduit. The inlet works would consist of an arch dam and lake tap.
As presently planned water would initially flow through a 10-foot diameter tunnel for
approximately 3,500 feet. The remaining 7,800 feet of the conduit system would consist
of a 6-foot diameter buried or surface steel penstock.
• Powerhouse. The powerhouse would be located within 2,000 ft. of the confluence of
Delta Creek and would house three impulse turbines, each with a total rated head of
1,300 ft. The rated installed capacity of the powerhouse would be 20 MW and the energy
output would be roughly 70 GWh.
• Access Roads. The Project is separated from the nearest town of Petersburg by
Frederick Sound. The only access for either construction or long-term operation and
maintenance of the Project will be via boat or aircraft. A dock would be located on
Thomas Bay for loading and unloading people and supplies from a boat. A road would
be constructed between the powerhouse and dock. Construction access would also be
provided by helicopter in association with a limited local temporary access road system
to transfer equipment within the construction area. During operation, the Project would
be fully automated and access would be provided via boat or aircraft.
• Transmission Lines. Power generated by the Project would be transmitted by a new
overhead / submarine, 138 kilovolt (KV) transmission segment roughly 20-miles long
running generally southwest from the powerhouse to Petersburg. The transmission
segment would integrate the project to the Southeast Intertie which currently connects
Petersburg to Wrangell to the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project on Bradfield Canal.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 21 9/3/2008
• Other Structures. An intake structure housing controls would be constructed at Ruth
Lake. Housing would be provided for power plant operators, staging areas for
construction and substation facilities
Power generated by the Project would provide the interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska
regional utilities with increased system reliability; replace current dependency on diesel
generation; and enable regional utilities to meet the increasing demand for electricity as
customers convert from oil to electric heat and new construction is designed for electric heat.
interconnected southern southeast Alaska regional utilities.
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.
Funding for the Project would occur in four phases:
• Phase I – Pre-feasibility and Application for Preliminary Permit
• Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
• Phase III – Final Design and Permitting
• Phase IV – Construction and Project Start-up
PHASE DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE
COST
ESTIMATE
I Pre-feasibility and Application for Preliminary Permit 8/2008 – 2/2009 $ 205,000
II Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding 3/2009 – 3/2014 $2,520,000
III Final Design and Permitting 3/2014 – 3/2016 $5,820,000
IV Construction and Project Start-up 3/2016 – 3/2020 $101,430,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $109,975,000
Anticipated sources of funds:
PHASE DESCRIPTION GRANT LOCAL
I Pre-feasibility and Application for Preliminary Permit 80% 20%
II Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding 80% 20%
III Final Design and Permitting 80% 20%
IV Construction and Project Start-up 80% 20%
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.
Regional Benefits
The City of Petersburg d.b.a. PMPL, The City of Wrangell d.b.a. City of Wrangell Light
Department (WLD), and the City of Ketchikan d.b.a Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) will
comprise the member utilities of the Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) following
completion of divestiture of the Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and transfer of the
existing Tyee Hydroelectric Project, Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project, and electric transmission
segments that connect the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan, including the
Swan-Tyee Intertie currently under construction, and other facilities formerly owned by the
FDPPA. SEAPA shall be an Alaska public corporation. Membership in SEAPA can be
expanded beyond the original three members noted above to other eligible Public Utilities.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 21 9/3/2008
PMPL acknowledges and agrees that the Ruth Lake Project shall be constructed, owned, and
operated for the benefit of the Southern Southeast Alaska Region and will not deny any person
benefit of Project facilities. The Ruth Lake Project would provide 70 million kWh of clean
renewable hydropower to regional utilities through the interconnected SEAPA Transmission
System, replacing current use of diesel in all interconnected communities. SEAPA Transmission
Segments include:
• Existing transmission segment from Tyee Project to Wrangell & Petersburg
• Soon to be completed Swan-Tyee Intertie that interconnects Wrangell, Petersburg &
Ketchikan
• Proposed transmission segment from Thomas Bay to Petersburg Substation
• Proposed transmission segment from Petersburg to Kake
• Proposed transmission segment from Ketchikan to Metlakatla
The annual net benefit to the SEAPA participants of the Ruth Lake Project is estimated to be
approximately:
• $13,300,000 in the case of 80% grant funding through construction, or
• $4,900,000 in the case of traditional municipal financing without grant funding
Public Benefits of the Project would include:
• Reduced reliance on high-cost diesel to generate electric power and oil heat resulting in
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and reduced air emissions; and reduced cost of
power to ratepayers of the Southeast Alaska Power Agency.
• Local jobs during construction
• Increased system reliability
• Availability of clean renewable energy and power to attract new economic development
in Southern Southeast Alaska Region, including ongoing mine development.
Benefits to PMPL
PMPL’s primary sources of power are the 2 MW Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project owned and
operated by PMPL and purchased power from the 22.5 MW Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project
owned by the Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and operated by the Thomas Bay Power
Authority (TBPA). In an average year power from the hydro projects provides typically 97.5 %
of PMPL’s generation. In recent years, PMPL’s diesel generation has averaged about
1,000,000 kWh per year.
Delivery from Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project is often interrupted due to line outages and
periods when Tyee is off-line for major maintenance. Power from the 2 MW Blind Slough
Project is not adequate to serve PMPL’s load. For these reasons PMPL has to maintain 100%
redundant diesel generation capability. PMPL is facing the need to relocate and replace the
aging diesel plant at an estimated capital cost of $20 to $25 million. PMPL would prefer to
replace the diesel generation capability with clean renewable energy from the proposed Ruth
Lake Project.
With completion of the Ruth Lake Project, PMPL would be a 100% hydro generation served
community. This would enable PMPL to displace approximately 75,000 gallons of fuel per year
at current usage levels which equates to approximately $260,000 per year at a fuel price of
$3.50 per gallon. The cost of diesel generation for FY 07/08 was approximately 28 cents per
kWh and will increase to 33.8 cents per kWh in FY 08/09. As loads continue to grow in
Petersburg, the amount of diesel generation would be expected to increase. With the estimated
cost per kWh for Ruth Lake, the net savings are estimated to exceed:
• $280,000 in the case of 80% grant funding through construction; or
• $160,000 in the case of traditional municipal financing without grant funding.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 21 9/3/2008
2.5 PROJECT COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY (2009 dollars)
Include a summary of your project’s total costs and benefits below.
2.5.1 Total Project Cost
(Including estimates through construction,
excluding financing costs.)
$ 109,975,000
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 160,000
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 45,000
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $ 205,000
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) Region PMPL
i. 80% grant funding through construction $13,300,000 $280,000
ii. Without grant funding $4,900,000 $160,000
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.)
Deferred cost for diesel plant
relocation: $20,000,000 to $25,000,000
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references
for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to
solicit project management Support. If the applicant expects project management assistance
from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
Project Manager:
Joe Nelson, Superintendent
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
PO Box 329
11 South Nordic
Petersburg, AK 99833
TEL: 907-772-4203
FAX: 907-772-9287
e-mail: pmpl@ci.petersburg.ak.us
Reference for Project Manager:
Richard Underkofler
Petersburg City Manager
PO Box 329
Petersburg, Alaska 99833-0329
TEL: 907-772-4425 Ext. 22
Runderkofler76@comcast.net
PMPL has contracted Hatch Acres Corporation to manage the activities for the feasibility studies
and license application. This includes field work, results, work papers, etc. Richard Griffith is
the lead consultant for feasibility studies and Nan Nalder is the lead consultant for the license
application.
Please see ATTACHMENT A for resumes.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 21 9/3/2008
3.2 Project Schedule
Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a
chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)
Please see ATTACHMENT E for a detailed Project Schedule.
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
Milestones for each quarter of Phase I and II of the project:
DATE PROJECT MILESTONES
2008
4th Quarter
Conduct Prefeasibility Study
Prepare Application for Preliminary Permit
2009
1st Quarter
File Application for Preliminary Permit with FERC – 02-01-2009
Prepare preliminary draft document to begin consultations with agencies
Begin consultations with Federal and State resource agencies and other interested
participants
2009
2nd Quarter
Receive Order Issuing Preliminary Permit
Meet with FERC and State/federal agencies to discuss project and identify studies
Design field and office studies in consultation with agencies and other interested
participants
2009
3rd Quarter
Begin first year field and office studies
2009
4th Quarter
Continue first year studies and prepare summary reports
Prepare scope of work for second year field studies
Prepare Preliminary Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent to File Application
for License (NOI)
2010
1st Quarter
File PAD, SD-1 & NOI with FERC and provide to Participants
Prepare and issue Public Notices for Scoping Meetings
2010
2nd Quarter
Hold Pubic Scoping Meetings in Petersburg & Juneau. File record of meetings with
FERC.
Begin work on Draft Application for License
2010
3rd Quarter
Conduct second year field and office studies program
2010
4th Quarter
Provide final study reports to agencies and Participants
Conduct teleconference meetings with agencies and Participants
2011
1st Quarter
Complete and submit Draft Application for License for pre-filing review and comment
Request recommendations for license terms and conditions
2011
2nd Quarter
Begin Final Feasibility Study
Receive comments on Draft Application
Conduct consultations with agencies to discuss comments on the Draft & recommended
terms & conditions
2011
3rd Quarter
Complete Final Feasibility Study & prepare Supporting Design Report (Exhibit F of
License Application)
2011
4th Quarter
Prepare and file Final Application for License with FERC and provide to agencies and
other Participants
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 21 9/3/2008
2012
1st Quarter
to
3rd Quarter
Begin Phase III Preliminary Engineering activities
Respond to FERC Requests for Additional Information
Review FERC-prepared NEPA document
Receive FERC Order Issuing License
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.
Hatch Acres Corporation is PMPL’s main contractor for this Project. Dick Griffith is the lead
consultant for Hatch Acres, and Nan Nalder, Hatch Acres, will serve as licensing manager. Nan
and Dick bring over 40 years experience in the hydro industry. Resumes for Dick and Nan are
included in ATTACHMENT A.
Hatch Acres will contract out the field work necessary to complete the field studies and license
application. The subconsultant team to provide field and office study support will include:
• R&M Consultants Inc
• ABR Inc – environmental research & services
• Northern Land Use Research
At this stage of the project, PMPL has not purchased any major equipment.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
PMPL will submit quarterly reports to AEA on progress to date and which milestones were
accomplished and describe any changes or updates to the schedule and/or scope of the project.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Potential Problems Solutions to Problems
Rising diesel costs Closely monitor market escalation and factor
into total cost of project
Rising equipment costs Factor into total cost of project
Lead time Factor into total cost of project
Site access during construction and long-
term project operation & maintenance
Address long-term access to the project
following completion of first year studies.
Inclement weather Monitor weather conditions and adjust
schedule accordingly
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 21 9/3/2008
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.
Potential extent/amount of energy resource
The proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project would develop the hydro potential at Ruth Lake. The
powerhouse would be located within 2,000 ft. of the confluence of Delta Creek and would house three
impulse turbines, each with a total rated head of 1300 ft. The rated installed capacity of the powerhouse
would be 20 MW and the energy output would be roughly 70 GWh
Pros and cons of Ruth Lake vs Other Available Alternatives
SEAPA Region
All regional utilities are seeking hydropower projects to replace the high cost of diesel generation
throughout the region. Ruth Lake, due to its location and potential installed capacity, is the preferred next
regional resource. Ruth Lake will provide enhanced reliability throughout the region and enable utilities to
retire aging diesel plant and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region. Availability of power from
Ruth Lake will enhance regional economic development to all interconnected utilities and their customers.
PMPL System
The only alternative energy source to serve PMPL’s load is to relocate and reconstruct the diesel
generation plant at an estimated cost of $20 to $25 million.
The cost of diesel fuel is vulnerable to fluctuations of availability and cost. The comparative cost of
hydroelectric generation vs diesel generation is:
• Hydroelectric generation: 4.2 cents for power generated at Blind Slough; 6.8 cents for purchased
power from Tyee, and, under traditional financing and absent grant funding, an estimated 18
cents for power generated at the proposed Ruth Lake hydro. Cost of power from Ruth Lake
would be considerably less if grant financing can be secured.
• Diesel generation - FY 06/07 at 28 cents per kWh; costs for 07/08 are 33.8 cents per kWh.
Continued reliance on imported fossil fuel and the high cost of diesel generated electricity is not
acceptable to PMPL and its ratepayers. In addition to uncertainty in future cost of fuel, diesel generation
emissions contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and degrade local air quality.
Please also refer to PMPL’s Rate Structure at 4.2.1 (below)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 21 9/3/2008
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.
Peak System Load
PMPL’s peak system load is 9.0 MW.
Existing System Generation Resources
The City of Petersburg, d.b.a. PMPL, has three power generation sources to serve the existing load:
• PMPL generates electric power at its 2 MW Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project
• The Downtown Diesel Plant located at PMPL’s office campus in downtown Petersburg.
• PMPL purchases power from the 22.5 MW Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project owned by the Four
Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and operated by the Thomas Bay Power Authority (TBPA).
Power from Tyee is delivered to Petersburg via the existing transmission segment from Tyee to
the Scow Bay Substation. Service from the substation to the City is via a City-owned 24.9 kV
distribution line.
PMPL-Owned Generation Resources
The base loaded 2 MW Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project, located at Crystal Lake, includes two impulse
turbine/generator units: Unit 1 with installed capacity of 400 KW and Unit 3 with installed capacity of 1600
KW. Average annual generation is 11.3 GWh. The 400 KW unit is from original project construction in
1924 and the 1600 KW unit was installed in the late 1970’s. PMPL uses both automated and manual
methods to operate the project.
The existing maximum generation capacity of the Downtown Diesel Plant is 10.1 MW. However, 3.5 MW
of this capacity is in poor condition and unreliable, with potentially excessive rebuild costs. Currently
diesel generation in Petersburg provides backup power to the Tyee system and is estimated to operate
less than 500 hours per year. This operation is divided into an estimated 350 hours of scheduled
maintenance of the Tyee transmission/generation system and 150 hours of unscheduled outages to the
Tyee transmission/generation system. Diesel generation must also operate when the line from the Scow
Bay Substation to the City is interrupted.
If PMPL were to continue to rely on diesel generation to meet future load growth, the diesel generation
would be relocated to Scow Bay. Some of the existing diesel generation equipment will not meet the more
stringent emissions standards that will be required for a new facility air quality permit.
PMPL Rate Structure
Electric Rates Effective February 2008
Customer Class Base Rate Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
Residential $9.00 0 - 325 KWH
11.8 cents/kwh
326 - 650 KWH
11.4 cents/kwh
Over 650 KWH
7.0 cents/kwh
Small Commercial $9.00 0 - 1500 KWH
11.1 cents/kwh
1501 - 3000 KWH
10.9 cents/kwh
Over 3000 KWH
7.6 cents/kwh
Large Commercial 28.00+
$3.10/kw
0 - 30,000 KWH
10.8 cents/kwh
30,001 - 60,000 KWH
10.6 cents/kwh
Over 60,000 KWH
8.1 cents/kwh
Boat Harbor $9.00 0 - 500 KWH
11.1 cents/kwh
501 - 1000 KWH
10.9 cents/kwh
Over 1000 KWH
7.6 cents/kwh
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 21 9/3/2008
Avoided Cost
PMPL’s avoided cost of energy during FY 06/07 was 28 cents per kWh. Cost for FY 07/08 is 33.8 cents
per kWh.
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.
PMPL Existing Generation Resources
The City of Petersburg, d.b.a. PMPL, has three power generation sources to serve the existing load:
• PMPL generates electric power at its 2 MW Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project and provides 26%
of system power.
• The Downtown Diesel Plant located at PMPL’s office campus in downtown Petersburg provides
backup when the transmission service from Tyee is interrupted. During FY 06/07 the diesel plant
provided 2% of system power.
• PMPL purchases power from the 22.5 MW Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project owned by the Four
Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and operated by the Thomas Bay Power Authority (TBPA) and
provides 72% of system power. Power from Tyee is delivered to Petersburg via the existing
transmission segment from Tyee to the Scow Bay Substation. Service from the substation to the
City is via a City-owned 24.9 kV distribution line.
Impacts of Ruth Lake on Existing Energy Infrastructure and Resources
Development of the Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project would displace the need for a total redundant diesel
generation system in Petersburg. Power from Ruth Lake would be available, not only to displace the cost
of operating diesel generation to replace lost power when the transmission line is down from Tyee, but
would also encourage new economic development in Petersburg and Mitkof Island and other
interconnected communities in southern Southeast Alaska.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The Ruth Lake Project would have a positive impact on PMPL’s ratepayers by displacing the cost of
relocation of the Diesel Electric Plant and future operations & maintenance cost necessary to provide
redundant generation capability for the Tyee Project that currently provides 72% of system requirements.
PMPL’s Total Energy Requirements (see below)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 21 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
Information for the proposed renewable energy system:
• A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location – development
of hydropower potential at Ruth Lake located in an unincorporated area, northeast of the
City of Petersburg, Alaska. Development of hydroelectric power at the site will include
construction of a lake tap, arch dam, unlined tunnel, power penstock, power plant,
tailrace, and transmission line segments.
• Optimum installed capacity – 20 MW
• Anticipated capacity factor – 40%
• Anticipated annual generation – 70 GWh
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 21 9/3/2008
• Anticipated barriers – Failure to receive a license to construct and operate the project is a
barrier to developing any new non-federal hydropower resource in the US.
• Basic integration concept – Electric power from Ruth Lake would be integrated to PMPL’s
resources to serve current and future loads. Power would be delivered to PMPL’s system
by a distribution segment. Following Divestiture and asset transfer, the FDPPA-owned
transmission system would be operated by the Southeast Alaska Power Agency
comprised of PMPL, WMLP, & KPU. Power surplus to PMPL’s needs would be delivered
to SEAPA for provision to other regional utilities and to other Southern Southeast Alaska
utilities by the interconnected transmission system currently owned and operated by the
FDPPA.
• Delivery methods - Electric power from Ruth Lake powerhouse would be transmitted by
overland and submarine transmission segments to the Scow Bay Substation on Mitkof
Island. Power would be delivered to PMPL’s system by a distribution segment and to
other southern Southeast Alaska utilities by the interconnected transmission system
currently owned and operated by the FDPPA. Following Divestiture and asset transfer,
the FDPPA-owned transmission system would be operated by the Southeast Alaska
Power Agency comprised of PMPL, WMLP, & KPU
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.
Lands that would be occupied by the Project are within the Tongass National Forest. PMPL has
contacted the Petersburg District Ranger office and the FERC specialist to discuss use of
National Forest Lands at Ruth Lake and Delta Creek. Ruth Lake is in an Old Growth Reserve
(OGR) Land Use Designation (LUD) or management prescription under the 2008 Tongass
Forest Plan. The OGR management prescription is a Transportation and Utility System (TUS)
avoidance area which provides that “Transportation and utility sites or corridors may be located
within this LUD only after an analysis of potential TUS corridor opportunities has been completed
and no feasible alternative exists outside this LUD.” This does not necessarily prohibit a TUS
development (including hydropower development) but there will be an analysis process and
documentation that will have to deal with the issue of “feasibility” in order to meet the direction of
the Forest Plan. PMPL will consult with the Petersburg District Ranger office and FERC
specialist during preparation of the pre-feasibility study and application for preliminary permit to
identify the analysis process and documentation that the Forest Service will need to allow
development of the proposed Ruth Lake Hydropower Project.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following informationas it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
• List of applicable permits
• Anticipated permitting timeline
• Identify and discussion of potential barriers
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 21 9/3/2008
PERMIT /
APPROVAL AGENCY
PERMITTING
TIMELINE
POTENTIAL
BARRIERS DISCUSSION
FERC
Preliminary
Permit
FERC File 02-01-2009 None identified Application due at
FERC 02-01-2009
FERC License FERC
Studies to support
the FERC license
will commence
following issuance of
the Preliminary
Permit.
Timeframe for
licensing: 2nd Quarter
2009 – 3rd Quarter
2012
None identified
FERC regulations
require consultation with
interested federal and
state agencies; local
governments; Indian
tribes; land-owners;
non-governmental
organizations; and other
interested individuals
and/or organizations
prior to filing an
Application for License.
FERC regulations
specify the content of
the Application for
License.
Compliance
with NEPA FERC & USFS
Timeframe for
licensing: 2nd Quarter
2009 – 3rd Quarter
2012
Non identified
PMPL proposes to
prepare a Preliminary
Draft Environmental
Assessment (PDEA)
and submit the PDEA in
the Application for
License.
USFS Special
Use
Authorization
(SUA)
USFS
Consultation during
pre-filing FERC
process. Application
for SUA following
license issuance.
Old Growth
Reserve Land
Use
Designation
Consultation with USFS
Title 16 Habitat
Permit ADF&G
Application prepared
and filed following
consultation with
ADF&G during
FERC pre-filing
process.
None identified
ADF&G conditions use
of waters and aquatic
habitat in permit.
Nationwide
Permit (NWP) USACE
Application prepared
and filed following
consultation with
USACE during
FERC pre-filing
process.
None identified
USACE will identify
appropriate NWP based
on proposed project
description.
NWP also addresses
project-related effects
on wetlands under
Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act.
Water Right ADNR – Water
Resources
Application prepared
and filed following
consultation with
ADNR during FERC
pre-filing process.
None identified
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 15 of 21 9/3/2008
Section 10
Permit USACE
Application prepared
and filed following
consultation with
USACE during
FERC pre-filing
process.
None identified
Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899
requires a permit for
structures or work
affecting navigable
waters of the US.
Thomas Bay and
Frederick Sound are
navigable waters.
Section 106 –
National
Historic
Preservation
Act (NHPA)
USFS;
ADNR-SHPO;
Indian Tribes;
and, if
necessary with
the Advisory
Council on
Historic
Preservation
Applicants for FERC
license are required
to conduct field
surveys and
evaluate project
potential to affect
historic properties.
None identified
The proposed project is
located within the high
sensitivity zone for
cultural resources.
Consultation is required
under NHPA and NEPA
Alaska Coastal
Management
Plan (ACMP) –
Consistency
Determination
ADNR-DCOM
Section 307 of the
Coastal Zone
Management Act
and the approved
ACMP require
Applicants for FERC
license to prepare
and submit a Coastal
Project
Questionnaire (CPQ)
None identified
Completion of the CPQ
requires copies of all
permits and other
approvals required to
support the FERC
license Application.
ADNR-DCOM circulates
the complete CPQ for
review and comment. A
complete CPQ is
required prior to FERC
issuance of a License.
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
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will
be addressed:
• General Note: PMPL will conduct consultations with federal and state agencies during
the pre-filing development of the Application for License. These agencies will submit
recommended terms and conditions for inclusion in any License issued by the FERC.
• Threatened or Endangered species – PMPL will consult with ADF&G, FWS, NMFS &
USFS, conduct required studies to identify any species of concern in Alaska and/or
Federal sensitive species, and implement measures to avoid and/or protect any species
during construction and Project operation.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 16 of 21 9/3/2008
• Habitat issues – PMPL will consult with ADF&G, FWS, NMFS & USFS regarding aquatic
and terrestrial species and habitat use within the Project area, conduct required studies,
and implement measures to protect habitat of concern during construction and Project
operation.
• Wetlands and other protected areas -PMPL will consult with the USACE, ADF&G, and
the FWS and conduct an on-site wetland delineation to identify wetland acreage, types,
and functional assessments within the proposed Project boundary and consult with the
agencies regarding any potential effects of constructing and operating the Project.
• Archaeological and historical resources - PMPL will conduct consultations and studies;
and prepare reports required to address Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
• Land development constraints – PMPL will consult with the BLM regarding any mineral
claims; consult with agencies and the public regarding any effects on recreational use;
consult with private land-owners, and consult with the USFS regarding the Land Use
Designation for National Forest Lands that would be occupied by the Project. Measures
addressing land use will be incorporated in easements and the USFS Special Use
Authorization.
• Telecommunications interference – Not applicable
• Aviation considerations – Not applicable
• Visual, aesthetics impacts – PMPL will consult with the USFS and other federal/state
agencies, conduct studies and develop management plans to protect the visual and
aesthetic resources at Ruth Lake and Delta Creek
• Identify and discuss other potential barriers – none identified at present
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
• Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
- Total project cost = $109,975,000
- Cost for Phase I = $205,000
• Requested grant funding = $160,000
• Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind = 45,000
• Identification of other funding sources - None
• Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system. PMPL proposes to develop
the project in four phases. PMPL will provide a 20% match to any State funds. Please
see attached RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form for breakdown of potential State funds and
local match.
• Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system. In addition to the
local 20% match, PMPL will provide in-kind match funds as shown on the attached RFA
AEA09-004 Budget Form (see ATTACHMENT C).
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 17 of 21 9/3/2008
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by
the applicant.
• Total anticipated project cost for this phase
• Requested grant funding
Estimated Project O&M costs $1,200,000 based on comparable project O&M costs in the
Southern Southeast Alaska region.
PMPL will not request grant funding for any O&M costs for the new facilities. O&M costs will be
funded through the electric rates.
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
PMPL estimates the first year cost of power to be 18 cents/kWh assuming no grant funding.
PMPL proposes to sell power to its ratepayers under the rates approved by the Petersburg City
Council. In 2007, PMPL power sales = $4,788,026.28
The rate structure for future power sales to other interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska
utilities would be determined in consultation with SEAPA.
PMPL’s electric rates effective February 2008 are included at Section 4.2.1 (above)
PMPL is a municipal utility and does not earn a rate of return from any of its projects.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
Please see the Cost Worksheet at ATTACHMENT B
Source of information: Joe Nelson, Superintendent, PMPL provided data regarding PMPL’s
electric utility presented in the Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 18 of 21 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.
Existing Electric System Operations
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light (PMPL) is a municipally owned electric utility providing
electric service to approximately 2,000 customers within the Petersburg city limits and on Mitkof
Island.
PMPL owns and operates the 2-MW Blind Slough Project that supplies approximately 25% of its
requirements. PMPL’s primary source of electric energy is the 22-MW Tyee Hydroelectric
Project, owned by the Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and operated by the Thomas
Bay Power Commission. PMPL proposes to construct and operate the Ruth Lake Hydroelectric
Project located at Ruth Lake and Delta Creek in an unincorporated area northeast of the City of
Petersburg. PMPL would use power generated at Ruth Lake to offset current use of diesel-
generated power; power in excess of PMPL’s needs will be sold to regional utilities. PMPL also
owns and operates a standby 10 MW diesel generation plant and the electrical distribution
system serving Mitkof Island.
Future Modifications to System Operations
Presently PMPL relies on electrical energy from the Blind Slough and Tyee hydro projects to
serve its load. When service from Tyee is interrupted, PMPL provides energy from the diesel
plant. PMPL is faced in the very near future with the need to relocate and reconstruct the stand-
by diesel plant at significant cost. The proposed Ruth Lake Project would provide significant
benefits and enhance system reliability: (1) an alternative source of power when the line to the
Tyee Project is down and (2) generate energy to enable PMPL to retire its diesel plant.
The FDPPA is currently going through Divestiture and ownership of the Swan and Tyee Projects,
the Swan-Tyee Intertie, and the line from Tyee to Wrangell and Petersburg will be transferred to
a new entity, the Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA). PMPL will be a member of SEAPA,
but will continue to operate the electric distribution system to provide service to PMPL’s
customers. Power excess to PMPL’s needs from Ruth Lake would be sold to regional utilities.
In addition to current interconnection with Wrangell and future interconnection with Ketchikan
when the Swan-Tyee Intertie is energized, line segments interconnecting Petersburg with Kake
and Ketchikan with Metlakatla are in the planning stages. Ruth Lake will be a major addition to
the resources to serve communities in an interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska grid.
Development of Ruth Lake
PMPL will pursue a FERC Preliminary Permit for the Project and conduct studies to support the
Application for License during the 3-year term of the FERC Preliminary Permit.
PMPL will file the Application for Preliminary Permit with FERC on February 1, 2009.
PMPL will oversee Hatch Acres who is providing a majority of the consulting work.
A business plan for Ruth Lake operations will be developed during the Phase II Licensing and
Feasibility.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 19 of 21 9/3/2008
4.4.6 Analysis and Recommendations
Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your
recommendation for additional project development work.
PMPL’s FY 08/009 diesel generation will cost approximately 33.8 cents/kWh. Absent grant
funding, the estimated cost of power from the Ruth Lake Project is approximately 18 cents/kWh.
Ruth Lake will provide PMPL and other utilities in Wrangell and Ketchikan, and eventually Kake
and Metlakatla with long-term sustainable environmentally clean energy.
PMPL proposes to prepare an economic analysis regarding the proposed Ruth Lake Project and
include in the Pre-feasibility Report that will be prepared during Phase I Reconnaissance (4th
Quarter 2008 – February 1, 2009). That analysis will be refined during Phase II Licensing &
Feasibility (2nd Quarter 2009 – 3rd Quarter 2012.
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings,
and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
• Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project
• Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price,
RCA tariff, or avoided cost of ownership)
• Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
• Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable
energy subsidies or programs that might be available)
• Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
• Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project: SEAPA regional savings will be significant with addition of
Ruth Lake as power delivered from Ruth Lake will replace current use of diesel
generation. Regional cost savings will be assessed in the Pre-Feasibility Study and
throughout the FERC licensing process. The Ruth Lake project will allow PMPL to
displace approximately 75,000 gallons of fuel per year which equates to approximately $
260,000 per year at today’s fuel prices. The lifetime for well operated and maintained
hydro projects can exceed 100 years.
• 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) – PMPL does not propose to apply
for additional annual incentives.
• Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable
energy subsidies or programs that might be available) – Not applicable
• Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
o Reduced greenhouse gas emissions resulting from displacement of fossil fuel
o Increased system reliability in the Southeast Alaska Power Agency service areas.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 20 of 21 9/3/2008
SECTION 6 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much your total project costs. Include any investments to date and funding sources,
how much is requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an
applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by tasks using the form - GrantBudget.xls
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the
project.
The total cost excluding financing costs to develop the Ruth Lake Project is approximately
$109,975,000.
Total local match funds (cash) are estimated at $21,980,000; and total match funds (In-Kind)
are estimated at $75,000.
In this request, PMPL is requesting grant funding for $160,000.
The Grant Budget.xls form is provided in ATTACHMENT C
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 21 of 21 9/3/2008
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION1
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 – SEE ATTACHMENT A
B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4 – SEE ATTACHMENT B
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 6. – SEE ATTACHMENT C
D. An electronic version of the entire application per RFA Section 1.6
E. Governing Body Resolution per RFA Section 1.4 – SEE ATTACHMENT D
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
1 Please note that PMPL also provides an ATTACHMENT E to Section 3.2 Project Schedule as allowed
in the Grant Application.
ATTACHMENT A - RESUMES
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
A. Resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and
suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4
3.1 PROJECT MANAGER: JOE NELSON, PMPL SUPERINTENDENT
REFERENCE: RICHARD UNDERKOFLER, CITY MANAGER
3.4 PROJECT RESOURCES
LEAD CONSULTANT FOR HATCH ACRES TEAM: A. RICHARD GRIFFITH
LICENSING MANAGER NAN NALDER
04/2008
Nan A. Nalder
SENIOR CONSULTANT & FERC COORDINATOR
EDUCATION
• Post-graduate study in Environmental Law, Natural Resource Economics, Hydroelectric
Power, Power Generation and Transmission Systems, Fishery Management. Project
Management, Facilitation – various short courses and University class work.
• Masters in Public Administration, University of Washington, 1979
• Bachelors of Fine Arts, Professional Design, Washington State University, 1961
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Ms. Nalder has over 40 years experience in natural resources management, architectural design,
strategic planning, regulatory analysis, rulemaking development and implementation, EIS
preparation, FERC licensing, compliance program management, public involvement programs
and managing collaborative processes. She manages environmental and regulatory work for
clients who own and operate hydropower projects and electric transmission infrastructure under
regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and State agencies. She has
served in policy and management positions with federal agencies, including EPA, NOAA, FERC
and the Bonneville Power Administration. She is a trained facilitator and uses those skills on
behalf of clients in developing long-term resource management programs in the form of durable
settlement agreements.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Hatch Acres Corporation – 2006 to Present
FERC Licensing Coordinator for the Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project proposed for development
by Petersburg Municipal Power & Light. Services include assistance in preparation of a
Renewable Energy Fund Grant; preparation of an Application for Preliminary Permit and
assistance to PMPL during FERC processing; and support in preparing the Pre-Feasibility Report
to assist PMPL in its decision-making process. Services following FERC issuance of the
Preliminary Permit will include preparing a request to FERC to approve the license application
process most favourable to PMPL; development of the preliminary documents required to
commence the FERC licensing process; development of environmental field and office studies
necessary to support the application for license; preparation of the required progress reports due
each 6 month period during the term of the Preliminary Permit; lead in agency consultations and
preparing the Application for License and assistance throughout the Licensing Process.
FERC Licensing Coordinator for the Allison Lake Project proposed for development by Copper
Valley Electric Association (CVEA). Nan brought this project to Hatch Acres following her earlier
association under Nalder Consulting noted below. Accomplished activities include preparation
of the Application for Preliminary Permit; and support in preparing the Pre-Feasibility Report to
assist CVEA in its decision-making process. FERC issued the Order Issuing Preliminary Permit on
September 4, 2008. Ongoing Work includes a request to FERC to approve the license
application process most favourable to CVEA; development of the preliminary documents
ATTACHMENT B – COST WORKSHEET
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
B. Cost Worksheet per application for Section 4.4.4
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. Hydropower Output ≈ 70,000,000 kWh
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation1
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt2 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other See attached Exhibit A
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other See attached Exhibit A
iii. Generator/boilers/other type See attached Exhibit A
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other See attached Exhibit A
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other See attached Exhibit A
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $47,700
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $290,960
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] 1,000,000 kWh
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 75,000 gallons
Other -na-
iii. Peak Load 9 MW
iv. Average Load 5.4 MW
v. Minimum Load 2.8 MW
1 Information provided on this Application Cost Worksheet addresses PMPL’s system. Please note that the Ruth
Lake Hydroelectric Project is proposed to be developed as a regional resource to serve members of the Southeast
Alaska Power Agency, formerly the Four Dam Pool Power Agency.
2 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
vi. Efficiency 13.5 kWh/gallon
vii. Future trends Increasing load due to electric heat conversions & interconnection with other
communities in southern Southeast Alaska.
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
3. Proposed System Design
a) Installed capacity 20,000 kW
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] -na-
ii. Electricity [kWh] 70,000,000 kWh
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] -na-
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] -na-
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] -na-
vi. Other -na-
4. Project Cost (2009 dollars) Without Grant Funding With 80% Grant Funding
through Construction
a) Total capital cost of new system $133,015,000 $27,153,000
b) Development cost:
licensing, feasibility & final design $8,545,000 $1,745,000
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $1,200,000 $1,200,000
d) Annual fuel cost -na- -na-
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 3
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat -na-
iii. Transportation -na-
b) Price of displaced fuel 70,000,000 kWh @ $0.338 / kWh = $23,660,000
c) Other economic benefits
i. Diesel Plant Retirement $20,000,000 to $25,000,000
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits -na-
6. Power Sales Price Without Grant Funding With 80% Grant Funding
through Construction
a) Price for power sale $0.18 / kWh $0.06 / kWh
7. Project Analysis Without Grant Funding With 80% Grant Funding
through Construction
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 1.8 5.0
Payback 30 years 2 years
ATTACHMENT B
EXHIBIT A
PETERSBURG MUNICIPAL POWER & LIGHT
RUTH LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
APPLICATION FOR FERC LICENSE AND RELATED STUDIES
EXISTING DIESEL ENERGY GENERATION
Unit Manuf. Year kW Rating Condition
Efficiency
(kWh/gal.
1250 Superior 1956 1,250 good 14.6
D398 Cat 1981 600 fair 17.6
D399 Cat 1981 800 fair 12.6
16V71 Detroit 1970 350 good 10.0
EMD-16 GM 1972 2,100 good 13.5
EMD-20 GM 1972 2,500 good 13.0
EMD-21 GM 1977 2,500 good 13.9
TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY 10,100
EXISTING HYDROPOWER ENERGY GENERATION
Unit Owner kW Rating Average Energy (kWh)
Blind Slough PMPL 2,200 10,400,000
Tyee Lake1 FDPPA 20,000 25,600,000
TOTALS 22,200 36,000,000
1 Power purchase from Four Dam Pool Power Agency
ATTACHMENT C – GRANT BUDGET FORM
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 6
Alaska Energy Authority - Renewable Energy FundBUDGET INFORMATION (2009 dollars)Milestone or Task Federal Funds State FundsLocal Match Funds (Cash)Match Funds (In-Kind)Other FundsTOTALSI Reconnaissance $0 $160,000 $40,000 $5,000 $0 $205,000II Licensing & Feasibility (2009-2012) $0 $2,000,000 $500,000 $20,000 $0 $2,520,000III Final Design $0 $4,640,000 $1,160,000 $20,000 $0 $5,820,000IV Construction $0 $81,120,000 $20,280,000 $30,000 $0 $101,430,000Totals $0 $87,920,000 $21,980,000 $75,000 $0 $109,975,000IIIIII IV TOTALS1 Direct Labor and Benefits $15,000 $15,000 $25,000.00 $55,0002 Travel, Meals, or Per Diem$5,000$5,000 $5,000 $5,000.00 $20,0003 Equipment$11,960,000 $11,960,0004 Supplies$05 Contractual Services$200,000$2,500,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $14,300,0006 Construction Services $83,640,000 $83,640,0007 Other Direct Costs$0TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES$205,000$2,520,000 $5,820,000 $101,430,000 $109,975,000Legend:Renewable Energy Fund request activityFuture activities - Amounts shown for Tasks III & IV are preliminary pending completion of Task IIBUDGET SUMMARY:BUDGET CATEGORIES:Milestone # or Task #RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
ATTACHMENT D – GOVERNING BODY RESULUTION
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
D. Governing Body Resolution per RFA Section 1.4
ATTACHMENT E – DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
E. Schedule and Estimated Cost – 4th Quarter 2008 through 3rd Quarter 2010
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Schedule and Estimated Budget – 1ST Quarter 2009 – 4th Quarter 2011 OCTOBER 5, 2008 1 ATTACHMENT E 3.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE PETERSBURG MUNICIPAL POWER & LIGHT RUTH LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT APPLICATION FOR FERC LICENSE AND RELATED STUDIES SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST 4TH QUARTER 2008 THROUGH 3rd QUARTER 2012 DATE ACTIVITIES CURRENT PERIOD ACCUMULATIVE 2008 4TH Quarter Conduct Pre-Feasibility Study Prepare Application for Preliminary Permit $155,0001 $ 155,000 Complete Pre-Feasibility Study and Application for Preliminary Permit File Application for Preliminary Permit with FERC – 02-01-2009 $50,000 $205,000 2009 1st Quarter Prepare preliminary draft document to begin consultations with agencies (use FERC guidelines for Preliminary Application Document (PAD)). Identify proposed multi-year studies plans – engineering, economic, and environmental Begin consultations with Federal and State resource agencies and other interested participants $100,000 $305,000 2009 2nd Quarter Receive Order Issuing Preliminary Permit from FERC2 Meet with FERC staff in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Project and the FERC Licensing Process. Meet with State and Federal resource agencies in Juneau to discuss the Project and the required studies to support the Application for License. Meet with engineering and environmental studies team to discuss the Project and the phased approach to studies to support the Application for License. Prepare initial year engineering and environmental field and office study plans in consultation with agencies and other interested participants. $100,000 $405,000 2009 3rd Quarter Began first year field and office studies Continue to consult with Federal and State resource agencies $560,000 $965,000 1 Phase I – Grant Application Activity 2 Estimated quarter to receive FERC-issued Preliminary Permit. The Preliminary Permit will require PMPL to prepare 6-Month Reports summarizing activities within each 6-month period and providing a list of activities to be accomplished in the following 6-month period. This Schedule will be updated to reflect receipt of the FERC-issued Preliminary Permit.
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Schedule and Estimated Budget – 1ST Quarter 2009 – 4th Quarter 2011 OCTOBER 5, 2008 2 DATE ACTIVITIES CURRENT PERIOD ACCUMULATIVE 2009 4th Quarter Continue first year field and office studies and prepared reports summarizing study method and results. Prepare Exhibit G Maps and other figures for inclusion in the Application for License. Prepare scope of work for second year field and office studies; submit to Federal and State resource agencies for review and comment. Hold teleconference meeting to discuss results of first year studies program and proposed studies for second year field season. Prepare final PAD and Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Application for License. Prepare Scoping Document No. 1 (SD1) $350,000 $1,315,000 2010 1st Quarter Continue office studies. Receive Federal and State resource agency comments on proposed second year studies program; prepare and issue final study plans; and file with FERC. File PAD, SD1, and NOI with FERC and provide to Participants in the proceeding Prepare and issue Public Notices for Scoping Meetings $50,000 $1,365,000 2010 2nd Quarter Continue office studies. Hold Public Scoping Meetings in Petersburg and Juneau. File record of Public meetings with FERC. Begin work on Draft Application for License $150,000 $1,515,000 2010 3rd Quarter Conduct second year field and office studies program. Prepare reports to be inserted into the Draft Application for License. $460,000 $1,975,000 2010 4th Quarter Provide reports to Federal and State Resource agencies. Schedule teleconference meetings with agencies and Participants to discuss the proposed project any potential terms and conditions agencies will recommend to FERC. Continue work on Draft Application for License. $225,000 $2,200,000 2011 1st Quarter Submit Draft Application for License to FERC, agencies, and other participants for pre-filing review and comments. Request preliminary recommendations for license terms & conditions. $50,000 $2,250,000 2011 2nd Quarter Begin Final Feasibility Study. Receive comments on Draft Application and preliminary recommendations for license terms & conditions. Hold consultations with Federal and State Resource Agencies and other Participants to discuss their comments on the Draft Application. $75,000 $2,325,000 2011 3rd Quarter Complete Final Feasibility Study and integrate information to the Final Application for License – Supporting Design Report that is part of Exhibit F of the Application for License. Continue consultations with agencies and Participants regarding comments on the Draft Application. $175,000 $2,500,000 2011 4th Quarter Prepare and file Final Application for License with the FERC and provide to agencies and other participants. $175,000 $2,675,000 2012 1st Quarter to 2012 3rd Quarter Begin Phase III Preliminary Engineering activities. Respond to FERC requests for Additional Information. Review FERC-prepared NEPA document and provide comments. Receive FERC Order Issuing License. $50,000 $2,725,000