Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Chignik Lake Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Feb 2010Prepared for Lake and Peninsula Borough P.O. Box 495 King Salmon, Alaska 99613 Telephone: (907) 246-3421 Facsimile: (907) 246-6602 Prepared by Knight Pi6sold and Co. 1580 Lincoln Street, Ste. 1000 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 629-8788 Facsimile: '(303) 629-8789 February 2010 Revision -A.. Project No. DM30TO .0,1 Knigkt Piesold N :3 U L T I N 6 Lake and Peninsula Borough Chignik Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Feasibility Study February 1, 2010 prepared for: Lake and Peninsula Borough P.O. Box 495 King Salmon, Alaska Telephone: (907) 246-3421 Facsimile: (907) 246-6602 prepared by: Knight Piesold and Co. 1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 1000 Denver, Colorado 80203-1512 USA Telephone: (303) 629-8788 Facsimile: (303) 629-8789 E-mail: denver@knightpiesold.com KP Project No. DV103.00240.01 Rev. No, Date Description Knight Pl6sold Client A February 1, 2010 Issued for Review J. Dwyer Lamar Cotten Knight Piesold O O N 8 U L'i I N G Lake and Peninsula Borough Chignik Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Feasibility Study Executive Summary This report presents a reconnaissance -level investigation of three alternatives for the construction of a small run -of -river hydropower facility at Chignik Lake, Alaska and includes discussions of the site characteristics, hydrology and hydraulics, analysis of the alternatives, preliminary cost estimates, and an economic analysis. The report is based on a site visit in October 2009, a previous reconnaissance study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1980), and information from vendors, experience with similar projects, and published information on developing small hydropower projects. Construction of a hydropower facility at Chignik Lake presents many challenges due to its remoteness from a major urban center and the lack of existing road access to possible sites for a hydropower plant. The village is located on the Alaska Peninsula approximately 470 miles southwest of Anchorage and is accessible only by boat or by air. The local runway is a 3200-foot gravel airstrip that is suitable only for small aircraft. Water access is via the Chignik River, which is subject to tidal fluctuations, and is only navigable for boats with a shallow draft. These factors will result in a relatively high cost per installed kilowatt to construct a hydropower plant, due to the high costs of mobilization, transport of equipment and materials, and construction of penstocks and transmission lines in remote areas. Three streams in the vicinity of the village studied as potential locations for a hydropower facility were: Bear Creek (Alternative 1), Cucumber Creek (Alternative 2), and Landing Creek (Alternative 3). Since there is currently no streamflow data for these streams, average monthly flows were estimated using gaged data from a stream on Kodiak Island with similar watershed and climatic characteristics. Before a definitive feasibility study can be completed for this project, a gage should be installed on one or more candidate streams and a minimum of one year of continuous flow data collected. This is necessary to determine the energy generation potential, the variability in stream flow, and the amount of flow required to maintain fisheries habitat. A fisheries study will also be required, since all of the candidate streams for a hydropower project include anadromous fish habitat. The current average electricity demand for the village is about 48 kilowatts, and significant growth in demand is not anticipated in the near future. In addition, there is no readily available market for any excess power that may be produced. Therefore, the concept for this study was to minimize costs by designing a facility that generally meets the current needs of the village without producing excess power. The approach was to keep the intake, penstock sizes, turbine/generator size, etc, relatively small to minimize the construction costs at this remote site. Keeping the size of the facility small should limit the need for the construction of expensive access to the diversion and powerhouse sites. The estimated average annual energy production is 788 megawatt -hours for Alternative 1 (Bear Creek), 830 megawatt -hours for Alternative 2 (Cucumber Creek) and 545 megawatt -hours for Alternative 3 (Landing Creek. Estimated costs of the three alternatives are US$3,013,288 for Alternative 1, US$3,651,262 for Alternative 2, and US$2,043,570 for Alternative 3. An economic analysis of each alternative was conducted using the HOMER Micropower Optimization Model (U.S. Department of Energy, 2005). The HOMER model output includes several economic measures, including present worth, that show the value of the difference between the hydropower alternative and the current diesel -only system. The present worth is the difference between the net present cost of the alternative system and the diesel -only system, where the net present cost is the Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A ES-1 Knight Piesold coHsuLYING present value of all system costs incurred over the project lifetime (including capital costs, replacement costs, operation and maintenance costs, and fuel costs) minus salvage value. Present worth shows how much the alternative system saves over the project lifetime compared to the diesel -only system, and is the primary measure for comparing the economic feasibility of the two systems. The benefit/cost ratios for each alternative compared to the diesel -only system were also calculated by adding the net present cost to the present worth and then dividing by the net present cost. Each alternative was compared to the current diesel system using three assumed prices for diesel fuel: the current price of US$3.78 per gallon, a price of US$4.62 per gallon, and a price of US$5.54 per gallon. This approach gives an idea of how the economics of each alternative compares to the current system assuming different prices for diesel, which is the major determinant of the cost of energy produced by the current system. At a diesel cost of US$3.78 per gallon, the benefit/cost ratios are 1.06 for Landing Creek, 1.03 for Bear Creek, and 0.89 for Cucumber Creek. At US$4.62 per gallon, the benefit/cost ratios are 1.17 for Landing Creek, 1.18 for Bear Creek, and 1.03 for Cucumber Creek. At US$5.54 per gallon, the benefit/cost ratios are 1.28 for Landing Creek, 1.34 for Bear Creek, and 1.18 for Cucumber Creek. Using the benefit/cost ratio as a criterion, Landing Creek (Alternative 3) is the most economically feasible when diesel is US$3.78 per gallon. However, when diesel rises to US$4.62 per gallon, Landing Creek and Bear Creek (Alternative 1) are nearly equal. When the price of diesel is US$5.54 per gallon, Bear Creek becomes the most economically attractive alternative. If Lake and Peninsula Borough decides to continue investigating a hydropower project at this site, recommendations include: • Investigate whether suitable financing is available to develop the Bear Creek or Landing Creek sites, given the economic benefits. Before the Landing Creek site is considered, determine if Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation (CLNC) will allow the City of Chignik Lake to develop a hydropower project at this site, since Landing Creek is located on CLNC property. • Install a stream gage at the selected site and collect a minimum of one year of streamflow data to provide a sound basis for a feasibility study. At least 5 or 6 manual measurements should be taken at a range of flow depths to develop a reliable rating curve, or an instream weir should be installed. • Perform topographic surveying between the potential diversion site and the powerhouse location to better define the site topography, the penstock alignment, and the total available head. • Conduct a geotechnical investigation along the proposed alignment of the transmission line to determine the foundation requirements for the transmission line poles. • Conduct an investigation of fisheries' resources to determine the requirements for bypass flows. • Initiate discussions with state and federal agencies to identify potential environmental and permitting issues. Conduct a definitive feasibility study after additional streamflow, fisheries, and topographic data is collected. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A ES-2 Knight Piesold C O "a V LT I M 6 Lake and Peninsula Borough Chignik Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Feasibility Study Table of Contents Page Executive Summary................................................................................................ ES-1 Section 1.0 - Introduction .....................1-1 1.1 Background ................. -................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.1 Scope of Work ..................... ........................................................................ .................. 1-1 1.1.2 Sources of Information ....... .............. ....... ............................................. ............. ........... 1-1 1.2 Limitations and Disclaimer............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Contributors and Contacts ...................... .............. ....... ....................... .......... ....... ......................... 1-2 Section 2.0 - General Site Conditions.......................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Location.................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Basin Description . ...... ..................... ....... .................. ..................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Climate..........................................................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Geology ....................................... ......... .........................................................................................2-1 . 2.5 Alternatives ..................... ....... ................................... .......................... ............................ ............. .2-1 2.6 Permitting........................................................................................................ ........................... ...2-1 Section3.0 - Hydrology............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Hydrologic Analysis ................................................ ....................................................................... 3-1 Section 4.0 - Project Alternatives..............................................................................4-1 4.1 Description of Alternatives............................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Alternative 1 — Bear Creek ....... ....... .................................................................................... .......... 4-1 4.3 Alternative 2 — Cucumber Creek .......................... ............................................. .................. .......... 4-2 4.4 Alternative 3 — Landing Creek ............. .......................................................................................... 4-2 Section 5.0 - Energy Generation Potential...............................................................5-1 Section 6.0 Estimated Costs................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 General ....................................... .... --.............. ..................................................... — ............. ....... 6-1 6.2 Basis for Construction Costs............................................................. ............................................ 6-1 Section 7.0 - Economic Evaluation................................................................. .7-2 7.1 General.............................................................................................................. .......7-2 .................... 7.2 Inputs and Assumptions................................................................................................................7-2 Section 8.0 - Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................8-1 8.1 Conclusions ...... ................. ................................... ..................................................................... ....8-1 Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A i Knight Piesold C O N S U L T I N G 8.2 Recommendations ..................... ....................................................... ......... ................................... 8-2 Section9.0 - References............................................................................................9-1 Section 10.0 - Acronyms and Abbreviations.........................................................10-1 Figures Figure 2.1 Hydroelectric Facility Alternative Locations Figure 3.1 Mean Monthly Unit Discharges for Myrtle Creek near Kodiak, AK (1964-1986) Figure 4.1 Typical Turbine Plan and Details Figure 5.1 Average Monthly Power Output — Alternative 1 — Bear Creek Figure 5.2 Average Monthly Power Output — Alternative 2 — Cucumber Creek Figure 5.3 Average Monthly Power Output — Alternative 3 -- Landing Creek Appendices Appendix A Cost Estimates Appendix B HOMER Model Output Appendix C Community Planning Map of Chignik Lake Appendix D Design Drawings for Existing Chignik Lake Power Plant Photos Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A ii Knight Piesold C O N S U L T I N G Lake and Peninsula Borough Chignik Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Feasibility Study Section 1.0 - Introduction 1.1 Background Knight Piesold and Co. (Knight Piesold) was retained by Lake and Peninsula Borough (LPB) to investigate the potential for construction of a small run -of -river hydropower facility near the City of Chignik Lake, Alaska. 1.1.1 Scope of Work The scope of work includes the performance of a reconnaissance study to determine the potential for a hydroelectric generation facility on a creek in the vicinity of Chignik Lake. This facility could provide lower cost energy to the local community, which currently relies on diesel generators to provide electricity. Previous studies conducted in the area (Information Insights, 2008) estimate that the cost of electricity generated by a small hydropower facility could be up to 40 percent below the projected cost of electricity from diesel generators with heat recovery. Several possible sites in the vicinity of Chignik Lake were investigated as part of the study. Following a site visit and an initial screening process, three sites were selected for a more detailed analysis, including a conceptual project layout, an estimate of power generation, a preliminary cost estimate, and an analysis of the economic feasibility. 1.1.2 Sources of Information Information used during the study included GPS data obtained during the site visit; information on power and fuel consumption from the power plant maintenance personnel and the Lake and Peninsula School District; information on the design of the existing power plant from Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc.; Information on the physical setting collected by Knight Piesold staff during a site visit; hydrologic data, geologic maps and reports, and topographic maps from the United States Geological Survey (USGS); and fisheries information from the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat, Anchorage, Alaska. 1.2 Limitations and Disclaimer This report titled Chignik Lake Hydroelectric Project, Reconnaissance Feasibility Study has been prepared by Knight Piesold for the exclusive use of Lake and Peninsula Borough. No other party is an intended beneficiary of this report or the information, opinions, and conclusions contained herein. Any use by any party other than Lake and Peninsula Borough of any of the information, opinions, or conclusions is the sole responsibility of said party. The use of this report shall be at the sole risk of the user regardless of any fault or negligence of Lake and Peninsula Borough or Knight Piesold. The information and analyses contained herein have been completed to a level of detail commensurate with the objectives of the assignment and in light of the information made available to Knight Piesold at the time of preparation. This report and its supporting documentation have been reviewed and/or checked for conformance with industry -accepted norms and applicable government regulations. Calculations and computer simulations have been checked and verified for reasonableness, and the content of the report has been reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and appropriateness of conclusions. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 1-1 Knight Piesold C O N S U L T I N G To the best knowledge and belief of Knight Piesold, the information presented in this report is accurate to within the limitations specified herein. This report is Knight Piesold pdf file: ChignikLakeReconnFS_RevA.pdf. Any reproductions or modifications of this report are uncontrolled and may not be the most recent revision. 1.3 Contributors and Contacts This report was prepared, reviewed and approved by the undersigned. Prepared by:/ John Dwyer, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Reviewed by: �. Rick Damiani, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Proieet Manager_ Approved Jaye Pickarts Senior Vice President G:1103\00240.01LDeliverables\Reporls Specs\Hydropower ReportSRev AlExecutables\TextkGhignikLakeReconnFS RevA,doc Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 1-2 Knight Piesold C O N S U LT I N G Section 2.0 - General Site Conditions 2.1 Site Location The proposed hydropower project is located in the vicinity of Chignik Lake, Alaska. The intake for the facility would be located on one of three creeks, Bear Creek, Cucumber Creek, or Landing Creek. In addition to these three locations, two other possible locations on Airport Creek and Tank Creek were considered. The latter two locations were eliminated from further study due to the small size of their contributing watershed areas, which were thought to be too small to produce adequate streamflow for power generation. Figure 2.1 shows the three iocations selected for detailed analysis, as well as the two locations that were eliminated from further study. 2.2 Basin Descrption The village of Chignik Lake is on the southern side of the Alaska Peninsula, about 470 air miles southwest of Anchorage, and is located on the southeastern shore of Chignik Lake near the head of the Chignik River. The area around the village is characterized by mountains up to 3,000 feet in elevation and is drained by several small streams that flow into Chignik Lake or Chignik River. The Chignik Lake and Chignik River are major salmon spawning areas, and many of the tributary streams are spawning and rearing areas. The village is accessible only by air or water. 2.3 Climate The nearest weather station is at Chignik Bay, about 15 miles northeast of Chignik Lake. The average annual precipitation at Chignik Bay is 83 inches, with an average annual snowfall of 46 inches. The climate of Chignik Lake is typical of the Alaska Peninsula, with cool, rainy summers and moderately cold winters with precipitation occurring as rain or snow. seasonal temperature extremes can range from 10 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in mid -winter to as high as 65°F in the summer. Average January temperatures range from 20°F to 31'F. Average July temperatures range from 46°F to 61 °F. 2A Geology The area is characterized by sedimentary bedrock (sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate, shale, and coal), with mixed unconsolidated sedimentary deposits (alluvial, colluviai, glacial, and marine) in some areas. The mountains southwest of Chignik Lake are volcanic (Detterman et al., 1981). 2.5 Alternatives Several possible locations for a run -of -river project were considered, and the following three selected locations are addressed in this report: Bear Creek, Cucumber Creek, and Landing Creek (see Figure 2.1). Bear Creek flows into the Chignik River from the north about 2 miles east of the village, and is accessible only by boat. Cucumber Creek flows into the east side of Chignik Lake about 4 miles north of the village and is also accessible only by boat. Landing Creek flows into the Chignik River from the south about 2 miles east of the village. The lower reach of Landing Creek can be accessed via the dirt road that connects the village to the boat landing about 2.5 miles east of the village. 2.6 PermiffM Chignik River, as well as Bear Creek, Landing Creek, and Cucumber Creek, are identified in the Anadromous Waters Atlas (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2008) as habitat areas for salmon. Therefore, a permit from the DFG will be required for a hydropower facility located on these creeks. An instream fisheries survey, as well as a minimum of one year of streamflow data, will be required by DFG to determine the instream flow requirements for the project. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 2-1 Knight Piesold CO NS IJ L T I N 0 A 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers will be required as well, since construction of an instream diversion will be necessary. A Declaration of Intent will need to be filed with FERC as a first step in acquiring a non jurisdictional determination, which is required by the State of Alaska. A questionnaire for the Division of Coastal and Oceans Management of the Alaska DNR will also need to be completed. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 2-2 Knight Piesold CONSUI-T1NG Section 3.0 - Hydrology 3.1 Hydrologic Analysis No streamflow data are currently available in the vicinity of the proposed diversion sites. The nearest stream with available streamflow data that has characteristics similar to the three creeks being considered in this report is Myrtle Creek on Kodiak Island, which is about 260 miles east of Chignik Lake. The average annual precipitation at Kodiak, Alaska (near Myrtle Creek) is 77 inches, and the temperature regime for Kodiak is similar to that at Chignik Lake. The watershed area at the Myrtle Creek gaging station is 4.74 square miles, which is similar in size to the watershed areas for the three creeks considered in this study; the elevation of the gage is 20 feet above mean sea level (amsl), which indicates that the Myrtle Creek watershed and the watersheds of the Chignik Lake streams are relatively similar in elevation. The USGS monitored the flows at the Myrtle Creek station (No. 15297200) from May 1, 1963 through September 30, 1986. The mean monthly flows for Myrtle Creek are shown in the table below. Average monthly streamflows for the creeks at Chignik Lake were estimated by multiplying the average monthly streamflow per square mile of watershed area (unit discharge in cubic feet per second per square mi#e [cfslmi2]) for Myrtle Creek times the respective watershed areas of each of the creeks at Chignik Lake. The average monthly unit discharge values in cfslmi2 for Myrtle Creek are shown in Figure 3.1. Myrtle Creek Station No. 15297200 near Kodiak, Alaska Mean Monthly Flow, cubic feet per second cfs Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Avg. Avg. 44 34 30 31 79 75 32 34 54 50 44 40 45.6 Max. 123 79 108 61 143 175 87 106 107 120 102 133 112,0 Min. 2 2 1 3 36 15 8 4 11 20 11 3 9.7 Avg. cfslmi2 9.3 7.2 6.3 6.5 16.7 15.8 6.8 7.2 11.4 10.5 1 9.3 1 8.4 9.6 The mean monthly flows for Bear Creek, Landing Creek, and Cucumber Creek that were estimated using this method are shown in the tables below. For each of the three alternatives, the turbine design flow is based on 40 percent of the average annual flow, adjusted to conform to a pre -designed turbine specification to avoid the additional cost of a custom -designed turbine. A value of forty percent of the estimated annual flow was used to provide a conservative estimate for the design flow, since the flows for the three creeks were synthetically generated and are not based on actual flow data. Also, it is unknown what the instream flow requirements for fisheries habitat will be. An accurate estimate of streamflows for power generation will require the collection of actual streamflow data, a fisheries survey, and a determination by the Department of Fish and Game of the instream flow requirements for fisheries. Estimated Flows for Bear Creek at Proposed Diversion (1.77 square miles) Mean Monthly Flow, cfs Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Avg - Total 16.4 12.7 11.2 11.6 29.5 28.0 11.9 12.7 20.2 18.7 16.4 14.9 17.0 Design 6.6 5.1 4.5 4.6 11.8 11.2 4.8 5.1 8.1 7.5 6.6 6.0 6.8 Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 3-1 Knight Pie'sold C O N S U L T ING Estimated Flows for Landing Creek at Proposed Diversion (1.09 square miles) Mean Monthly Flow, cfs Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Avg. Total 10.1 7.8 6.9 7.1 18.2 17.2 7.4 7.8 12.4 11.5 10.1 9.2 10.5 Design 4.0 3.1 2.8 2.9 7,3 6.9 2.9 3.1 5.0 4.6 4.0 3.7 4.2 Estimated Flows for Cucumber Creek at Proposed Diversion (1.33 square miles) Mean Monthly Flow, cfs Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Av . Total 12.3 9.5 8.4 8.7 22.2 21.0 9.0 9.5 152 14.0 12.3 11.2 12.8 Design 4.9 3.8 3.4 3.5 8.9 8.4 3.6 3.8 6.1 5.6 4.9 4.5 5.1 Based on the available temperature and streamflow data, it is assumed that power could be generated year-round at Chignik Lake. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 3-2 Knight Piesold G O N S U L 7 1 N G Section 4.0 - Project Alternatives Based on the site visit and other available information, three possible run -of -river alternatives were identified and evaluated for potential hydropower generation in the vicinity of Chignik Lake. 4.1 Descri0ion of Alternatives Each of the three alternatives considered would be similar in concept and would consist of a low -head concrete weir across the creek, which would divert a portion of the streamflow into a penstock. The penstock would convey the flow downhill to a turbine located in a small powerhouse, consisting of a steel building on a concrete slab -on -grade foundation. The turbine would be connected to a generator, which would produce 3-phase, 60-hertz, 480-volt electricity. The 480-volt electrical output from the generator would be converted to 12.5 kilovolts (kV) by a step-up transformer and then connected to the village electrical grid by a 12.5 kV transmission line. The hydroelectric generator would be designed to run in parallel with the existing diesel generators. The electrical demand would be primarily supplied by the hydro generator during times of sufficient streamflow. When streamflows are too low to meet the demand fully, the diesel generators would be activated to supply additional power. Currently, the heat for the community school and teacher housing at Chignik Lake is supplied via radiant hot water, powered by a heat recovery system utilizing waste heat from the diesel generators. This system is complemented by a diesel -fueled hot water boiler for those times when the waste heat from the generators is insufficient to meet the thermal demand. The hydropower system for Chignik Lake should supply (to the extent possible) the thermal load that is currently supplied by the waste heat recovery system in order to avoid the expense of operating the diesel generators solely to provide waste heat. Thus, the proposed hydropower system would include an electric hot water boiler, a supervisory control system, and a secondary load controller, which would supply the thermal load during those times when adequate streamflow is available. The locations of the three alternatives are shown on Figure 2.1. 4.2 Alternative 1 — Bear Creek Bear Creek flows north into the Chignik River about 2 miles east of the village, with a watershed area above the proposed diversion point of 1.77 square miles. It is accessible from the village only by boat. The conceptual design for this alternative is preliminary and is based on information from USGS topographic maps, since the location for this alternative was not visited. The proposed diversion point is located at an elevation of 700 feet amsl. The diversion would consist of a low concrete weir, estimated to be 4 feet high, 15 feet wide, and 1 foot thick, which would divert water into a 12-inch-diameter high -density polyethylene (HDPE) penstock with a valved inlet. The penstock would be 4,400 feet long and would deliver water to the powerhouse at an elevation of 350 feet amsl, for a gross head of 350 feet and an estimated net head of 275 feet. The powerhouse would be a 20-foot by 30-foot by 10-foot insulated steel building, housing a double -nozzle, Pelton-type turbine and a 125-kilowatt (kW), 3-phase, 480-volt generator, with a combined efficiency of 70 percent. The design flow is 6.0 cfs, and the estimated power output is 97 kW. The system would include a step-up transformer to increase the generator output voltage from 480 volts to a transmission line voltage of 12.5 kV. The turbine would discharge into a short tailrace and back to the creek. A typical plan and section of the turbine and generator assembly is shown in Figure 4.1 Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 4.1 Knight Piesold C O N 3 U L T I N 0 Approximately 2 miles of 12.5-kV transmission line would run south from the powerhouse to the access road on the south side of the Chignik River, crossing the river via a 400-foot long underwater cable. It would then run west along the access road for 1 mile where it would connect to the eastern terminal of the existing village transmission line. If a wind turbine were located at the location of the meteorological tower erected in October 2009, then this last mile of cable could be shared by the wind turbine and the hydropower facility. 4.3 Alternative 2 — Cucumber Creek Cucumber Creek flows into the east side of Chignik Lake about 4 miles north of the village and is also accessible only by boat. It has a watershed area above the diversion point of 1.33 square miles. The conceptual design for this alternative is based on information from USGS topographic maps, since this location was not visited. The proposed diversion point is located at an elevation of 700 feet amsl. The diversion would consist of a low concrete weir, estimated to be 4 feet high, 15 feet wide, and 1 foot thick, which would divert water into a 12-inch-diameter HDPP penstock with a valved inlet. The penstock would be 3,100 feet long and would deliver water to the powerhouse at an elevation of 300 feet amsl, for a gross head of 400 feet and an estimated net head of 362 feet. The powerhouse would be a 20-foot by 30-foot by 10-foot insulated steel building, housing a double -nozzle, Pelton-type turbine and a 143-kW, 3-phase, 480-volt generator, with a combined efficiency of 70 percent. The design flow is 5.3 cfs, and the estimated power output is 113 kW. A step-up transformer would be used to increase the generator output voltage from 480 volts to 12.5 kV. The turbine would discharge into a short tailrace and back to the creek. Approximately 4.3 miles of 12.5-kV transmission line would run southeast from the powerhouse, crossing the river via a 400-foot long underwater cable and then connecting to the eastern terminal of the existing village transmission line located on the access road. 4.4 Alternative 3 — Landinq Creek Landing Creek flows north into the Chignik River about 2 miles east of the village, and has a watershed area above the proposed diversion of 1.09 square miles. The lower reach of Landing Creek can be accessed via the dirt road that connects the village to the boat landing on the Chignik River about 2.5 miles east of the village. This location was visited during the site trip, and the conceptual design is based on this visit and information from topo maps. The proposed diversion point is located at an elevation of 500 feet amsl. The diversion would consist of a low concrete weir, similar to the weir for Alternatives 1 and 2, which would divert water into a 1 2-inch-d ia meter HDPE penstock with a valved inlet. The penstock would be 3,000 feet long and would deliver water to the powerhouse at an elevation of 200 feet amsl, for a gross head of 300 feet and an estimated net head of 255 feet. The powerhouse would be a 20-foot by 30-foot by 10-foot insulated steel building, housing a double -nozzle, Pelton-type turbine and a 110-kW, 3-phase, 480-volt generator, with a combined efficiency of 70 percent. The design now is 5.5 cfs, and the estimated power output is 83 kW. The powerhouse would include a step-up transformer to increase the generator Output voltage from 480 volts to 12.5 kV. A 12.5-kV transmission line would run northwest from the powerhouse for 0.6 miles to the existing access road and then west for 1 mile along the road to the eastern terminal of the existing village transmission line. The proposed diversion point, penstock, powerhouse, and a portion of the transmission line for this alternative are located on property owned by Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation (CLNC), according to the Community Planning Map for Chignik Lake. This would require an easement or other arrangement with CLNC if the City of Chignik Lake wants to construct a hydropower facility at this location. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 4-2 Knight.�Piesold coHsuLT9Hc Section 5.0 - Energy Generation Potential The concept for each hydropower facility alternative includes a powerhouse containing a double -nozzle Pelton-type turbine with the following characteristics: • A stainless steel Pelton wheel on a 4140 chromolly shaft • Spherical roller pillow block bearings • Non -wearing labyrinth seal assemblies • Epoxy -coated welded steel housing • Hydraulically actuated needle nozzles • Hydraulic-openlweight-close jet deflector • Hydraulic power supply unit for nozzles and deflector The generator for each alternative is a synchronous generator with a gear drive speed increaser, couplings, and drive guards. The turbine will operate alone or in parallel with the diesel generators, based on the load and on available flow. Each alternative includes a custom switch gearlcontrolslgoverning package to parallel the generator with the diesel generators and to provide protective relays. The controls panel includes the ability to adjust flow across the turbine using a level sensor installed at the penstock forebay. Flow to the turbine will also be controlled based on demand loads. The monthly power production was estimated for each alternative based on synthetically generated streamflow data (see Section 3.0) and the design flow values listed below, and is shown in Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. The annual energy generation for each alternative was also calculated and is summarized in the table below. Chignilk Lake Hydropower Study Annual Energy Generation Summary Alternative Net Head Design Flow Installed Capacity Annual Energy Production (feet) (cfs) (kW) (MWhr) Bear Creek 275 6.0 97 788 Cucumber 362 5.3 113 830 Creek Landing Creek 255 5.5 83 545 Notes: 1) The assumed annual energy production period is 365 days. Estimated energy production is based on synthetically generated monthly flow values. 2) Transformer efficiency is assumed to be 99.5 percent. 3) Availability is assumed to be 97 percent. A more accurate estimate of potential power production will require a more refined estimate of available streamflows based on actual stream gaging data and a determination the instream flow requirements for fisheries. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 5-1 Knight Piesold C O N S U L T 1 N G Section 6.0 - Estimated Costs 6.1 General An opinion of probable project costs for the three alternatives was developed based on November 2009 dollars. The opinion of probable project costs includes construction costs, contingency, engineering, permitting, and legal fees. Estimated project costs are discussed below and presented in Appendix A. 6.2 Basis for Construction Costs Construction costs were estimated for each of the project components using cost data from available guidelines, manuals, previous projects, and preliminary quotes from vendors. Where necessary, estimated costs were escalated to the third quarter of 2009 using escalation rates published by the Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009). Estimated construction costs were developed for each of the following project components: • Mobilization and demobilization • Access tracks and site clearing • Intake works • Penstock and accessories • Powerhouse and accessories • Power generation package (turbine, generator, controls, switchgear, transformer) • Transmission line The costs for mobilization and demobilization were estimated as a percentage of the total construction costs. Costs for the intake works, penstock, and powerhouse were based on a conceptual design using available guidelines and data from previous projects, with dimensions and site conditions estimated from reconnaissance -level topographic and geotechnical information. Costs for the turbines, generators, controls, and switchgear are based on a preliminary quote from Canyon Hydro of Deming, Washington. Transmission line and step-up transformer costs were based on available guidelines and data from previous projects. The total estimated construction cost was calculated by adding 5 percent for indeterminates and 25 percent for contingency. The indeterminates allowance covers the cost of unexpected and unlisted items that would normally be included in a more detailed estimate. The contingency allows for possible price increases due to unforeseen circumstances. Overall project cost was established by adding engineering, permitting, and legal fees. Engineering costs include the feasibility study, preliminary and final design, procurement, construction management, and administration. Permitting costs include one stream gage installation, one year of streamflow data collection, and a fisheries survey. The estimated construction cost and the total project cost for each alternative are shown in Appendix A. The total project cost estimate is US$2,043,570 for the Landing Creek alternative, US$3,013,288 for the Bear Creek alternative, and US$3,651,262 for the Cucumber Creek alternative. These cost estimates should be considered accurate to within plus or minus 30 percent. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 6-1 Knight Pi e'sold C Q K 5 U L T I H G Section 7.0 - Economic Evaluation 7.1 General An economic evaluation was conducted for each alternative using HOMER, a software program for the economic analysis and optimization of alternative energy systems (U.S. Department of Energy, 2005). The HOMER model output includes several economic measures that show the value of the difference between the hydropower alternative under consideration and the current diesel -only system. Each of the three hydropower alternatives was compared to the current system, which utilizes up to four diesel generators to produce electricity for the school and the community. The current system includes a heat recovery system, which recovers waste heat from the generators that is then used to heat the community school and the teacher housing via radiant hot water. A diesel -fueled boiler is used to supplement the waste heat recovery system during the winter months. It was assumed that each hydropower alternative would be combined with the present diesel system, which would supply power when demand exceeds the capacity of the hydropower system alone. When the hydropower system output exceeds the electricity demand, the excess output would be routed to an electric boiler to satisfy the thermal load if required. 7.2 Inputs and Assumptions Inputs to the HOMER model included capital costs; costs for equipment replacement, operation and maintenance, and fuel; and salvage value. A project lifetime of 30 years was assumed for the hydropower system alternatives. A nominal interest rate of 5 percent and an inflation rate of 2 percent were assumed, resulting in a real interest rate (discount rate) of 2.9 percent. The replacement cost for the hydropower system is assumed to be US$180,000. The turbines are assumed to have an efficiency of 70 percent. A system operation and maintenance (O and M) cost of US$22,875 per year was used for both the combined hydropower/diesel system and the present system. This assumes that the O and M for the diesel generators in the combined system will be less due to reduced diesel usage, and that the amount of this reduced O and M will equal the additional O and M required for the hydropower component. The current O and M cost is based on information provided by Lake and Peninsula School District (LPSD). Daily meter readings for Chignik Lake for the years 2006 to 2009 (obtained from LPSD) were used to estimate the daily electric load for the community. The statistics for monthly electrical power consumption in kilowatts, including the monthly maximum, average daily high, daily mean, average daily low, and monthly minimum values are shown in the graph below. a 0 _J 120 90 so 30 Seasonal Profile t 4. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jlul Aug Sep T Oct Nov Dec Ann max daily high mean daily low min The average electrical load is 47.9 kW, or 1150 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day, with peaks up to 112 kW during the winter months. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 7-2 Knight Piesoid G Q NSULTING The average daily thermal load data for Chignik Lake was estimated using data from Port Heiden, which is another community on the Alaska Peninsula with a population and climate similar to Chignik Lake. The average thermal load is estimated to be 1,195 kWh per day. Statistics for the estimated monthly thermal power consumption in kW at Chignik Lake, including the monthly maximum, average daily high, daily mean, average daily low, and monthly minimum values are shown in the following graph. 120 _ Seasonal Profile - -- 90 r max daily high 60 + mean tu i -, ' -0 30 i daily low 1 min 0 Jan Feb Mar ' Apr- ' Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov bec Ann The average fuel consumption for the diesel generators is currently about 35,000 gallons per year according to LPSD, and the boiler is estimated to use about 7,600 gallons of diesel fuel per year (Information Insights, 2008). The cost of diesel fuel delivered to Chignik Lake in 2008 was US$3.78 per gallon. Two possible future costs for diesel fuel were assumed for the economic analysis: US$4.62 per gallon, which is the estimated price of diesel when the price of crude oil is US$1 10 per barrel (Information Insights, 2008), and US$5.54 per gallon, which represents a 20 percent increase over US$4.62 per gallon. A hydropower system for Chignik Lake must serve the electrical load as well as the thermal load that is currently supplied by the waste heat recovery system, in order to avoid the expense of operating the diesel generators solely to provide waste heat. This requires adding an electric boiler and control system that can be operated by the electrical output of the hydropower system. The HOMER analysis produces several economic measures that show the value of the difference between the hydropower/diesel alternative under consideration and the current diesel -only system, taking into account the 30-year life cycle costs of both systems. Definitions of the economic measures shown in the tables are as follows'. • The present worth is the difference between the net present cost of the alternative system and the diesel -only system, where the net present cost is the present value of all system costs incurred over the project lifetime (including capital costs, replacement costs, O and M costs and fuel costs) minus salvage value. Present worth shows how much the alternative system saves over the project lifetime compared to the diesel -only system, and is the primary measure for comparing the economic feasibility of the two systems. The present worth represents the avoided cost over the life of the project when operating the alternative system rather than the current system. • The discounted payback period is how long it would take to recover the initial investment in the alternative system using the assumed rates for interest (5 percent) and inflation (2 percent). • The annual worth is the present worth multiplied by the capital recovery factor, which is a ratio used to calculate the present value of a series of equal annual cash flows. • The Internal Rate of Return is the discount rate that makes the present value of the difference of the two cash flow sequences equal to zero. • The levelized cost of energy (COE) is the average cost per kWh of useful electrical energy produced by the system. This is calculated by dividing the annualized cost of producing electricity (the total annualized cost minus the cost of serving the thermal load) by the total annual electric energy production. The following three tables show the economic measures for each of the three hydropower/diesel alternatives, assuming diesel costs of US$3.78 (current cost), US$4.62 (22 percent greater than the Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 7-3 Knight Piesold C O N S U L. T I N G current cost), and US$5.54 per gallon (a 20 percent increase over US$4.62). The benefit/cost ratios for each alternative compared to the diesel -only system were calculated by adding the net present cost to the present worth and then dividing by the net present cost, and are also shown. Chignik Lake Hydropower Study Comparison to Present System if Diesel Price is US$3.781gal *Present Discounted Annual Internal Levelized Alternative Worth Payback Worth Rate of Cost of Benefit/Cost (US$) Period (US$) Return Energy Ratio (years) (percent) (US$IkWh) Diesel Only NIA NIA NIA NIA $0.35 N/A Landing Creek $217,920 25.7 $10,975 3.70 $0.324 1 06 Bear Creek $98,283 28.7 $4,950 3.15 $0.338 1.03 Cucumber Creek -$485,376 >30 -$24,444 1.85 $0.408 0 89 Chignik Lake Hydropower Study Comparison to Present System if Diesel Price is US$4.62/gal "Present Discounted Annual Internal Levelized Worth Payback Worth Rate of Cost of Benefit/Cost (US$) Period (US$) Return Energy Ratio (years) (percent) (US$/kWh) Diesel Only NIA NIA NIA NIA $0.408 NIA Landing Creek $674,906 20.0 $33,990 5.25 $0.327 1.17 Bear Creek $712,776 22.1 $35,897 4.61 $0.322 1.18 Cucumber Creek 5140,380 28.4 $7,070 3.19 $0.391 1.03 Chignik Lake Hydropower Study Comparison to Present System if Diesel Price is US$5.541gal `Present Discounted Annual Internal Levelized Alternative Worth Payback Worth Rate of Cost of Benefit/Cost (US$) Period (US$} Return Energy Ratio (years) (percent) (US$IkWh) Diesel Only NIA NIA NIA NIA $0.470 NIA Landing Cr. $1,173,428 15.9 $59,096 6.83 $0.330 1,28 Bear Cr. $1,383,120 17.6 $69,657 6.09 $0.304 1.34 Cucumber Cr. $823,012 22.4 $41,449 4.54 $0.372 1.18 'Represents the avoided cost over the life of the project when operating the alternative system rather than the diesel system. The relative values of the benefit/cost ratio for the three alternatives vary significantly with the cost of diesel. At a diesel cost of US$3.78 per gallon, the benefit/cost ratios are 1.06 for Landing Creek, 1.03 for Bear Creek, and 0.89 for Cucumber Creek. At US$4.62 per gallon, the benefit/cost ratios are 1.17 for Landing Creek, 1.18 for Bear Creek, and 1.03 for Cucumber Creek. At US$5.54 per gallon, the benefit/cost ratios are 1.28 for Landing Creek, 1.34 for Bear Creek, and 1.18 for Cucumber Creek. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 7-4 Knight Piesold C Q N S U LT I N G Using the benefit/cost ratio as a criterion, Landing Creek (Alternative 3) is the most economically feasible when diesel is US$3.78 per gallon. However, when diesel rises to US$4.62 per gallon, Landing Creek and Bear Creek (Alternative 1) are nearly equal. When diesel is US$5.54 per gallon, Bear Creek is the most economlcaliy feasible. The Landing Creek alternative offers a more convenient location in terms of operation and maintenance since it is on the same side of the river as the village and is reasonaNy close to the existing access road. However, this alternative also produces the lowest amount of energy, if the cost of diesel rises above US$4.62 per gallon, the Bear Creek alternative becomes more economically attractive compared to Landing Creek. However, the initial capital cost for Bear Creek is US$3,013,288, while the initial capital cost for Landing Creek is US$2,043,570. Thus, the choice should consider the long-term benefits versus the current availability of financing for construction. Summary reports of the HOMER output for the three alternatives are given in Appendix B. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 7.5 Knight Piesold G Q N S U LT I NO Section 8.0 - Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 Conclusions The high cost of electricity generation using diesel fuel at Chignik Lake is a strong incentive to examine alternative means of generating electricity, such as hydropower or wind. However, additional work will be required to determine if alternative energy generation is economically feasible. The following conclusions are based on the reconnaissance level study for hydropower described in this report: • Estimated average annual energy production is 788 megawatt -hours for Alternative 1 (Bear Creek), 830 megawatt -hours for Alternative 2 (Cucumber Creek) and 545 megawatt -hours for Alternative 3 (Landing Creek. • Estimated project costs are US$3,013,288 for Alternative 1, US$3,651,262 for Alternative 2, and US$2,043,570 for Alternative 3. These cost estimates should be considered accurate to within plus or minus 30 percent. • When diesel is US$3.78 per gallon, Alternative 3 (Landing Creek) is the most economically feasible alternative based on the benefit/cost ratio. When diesel is US$4.62 per gallon, Alternatives 1 (Bear Creek) and 3 (Landing Creek) are about equally feasible. When diesel is US$5.54 per gallon, Alternative 1 is the most economically feasible. • Alternative 3 (Landing Creek) is the most conveniently located alternative for operation and maintenance. However, the Landing Creek site is located on CLNC property, and therefore an easement or other arrangement between CLNC and the City of Chignik Lake will be required. • The design flows and available streamflows used for this study are based on synthetically generated data, and therefore the economic analysis presented here is preliminary. A minimum of one year of daily streamflow data at the prospective diversion site(s) is needed to complete a definitive feasibility study. • For all the alternatives, costs for a hydropower project wilt be high due to the physical setting. Material transport and construction costs will be high, since the contractors capable of performing the work are located in Anchorage. • Construction materials for all three alternatives can only be shipped as far as Chignik Bay, which is about 16 miles east of Chignik Lake. From Chignik Bay, materials would need to be transported by landing craft to the boat landing about 2.5 miles east of Chigrik Lake for the Landing Creek alternative, or to other possible (and more distant) landing sites for the Bear Creek and Cucumber Creek alternatives. Transport from the landing sites to the project locations would be by helicopter, or access would need to be constructed for overland transport. • The powerhouse locations for the potential alternatives are at the base of the mountain front, which is typically two to five miles from the village. The powerhouse and diversion locations for the Landing Creek alternative are 0.5 or more miles from the existing road. The required equipment and construction materials would need to be transported by helicopter or by all -terrain vehicles from the road to the project site. • For all alternatives, 2 to 4 miles of transmission line will need to be constructed from the powerhouse to the point of connection with the existing distribution line. If wetlands are present along the transmission line route, mitigation measures wili be required to minimize the impacts. • Dense alder brush is predominant at the project locations, while low-lying areas are often boggy. These conditions make access for collecting streamflow, fisheries, and topographic survey data time-consuming and expensive. Brushy areas will require clearing for equipment access and construction of the diversion, penstocks, powerhouse, and transmission lines, while boggy areas will require wetland permitting and mitigation. • The small size of the job will drive up construction costs, because only a limited number of contractors are likely to submit bids. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 8-1 Knight hesoId G O H S U L T I N G • A minimum of one year of streamflow data will be required by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to determine instream flow requirements for salmon habitat. • Onsite surveying will be required along the penstock alignment to allow a more precise estimate of avaiiable net head for power generation. • Geotechnical investigations will be required along the penstock and transmission line alignments to determine support and foundation requirements. 8.2 Recommendations If LPB decides to continue investigating a hydropower project at this site, recommendations include: • Investigate whether suitable financing is available to develop the Bear Creek or Landing Creek sites, given the economic benefits. Before the Landing Creek site is considered, determine if CLNC will allow the City of Chignik Lake to develop a hydropower project at this site. • Install a stream gage at the selected site and collect a minimum of one year of streamflow data to provide a sound basis for a feasibility study. At least five or six manual measurements should be taken at a range of flow depths to develop a reliable rating curve, or an instream weir should be installed. • Perform topographic surveying between the potential diversion site and the powerhouse location to better define the site topography, the penstock alignment, and the total available dead. • Conduct a geotechnical investigation along the proposed alignment of the transmission line to determine the foundation requirements for the transmission line poles. • Conduct an investigation of fisheries' resources to determine the requirements for bypass flows. • Initiate discussions with state and federal agencies to identify potential environmental and permitting issues. • Conduct a definitive feasibility study after additional streamflow, fisheries, and topographic data is collected. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 8-2 Knight Ae'soId C O N S U L T I N G Section 9.0 - References Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2008, Anadromous Waters Atlas, Chignik A-3 and B-3 Quads, Anchorage, Alaska, www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/AWC. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1989, Civil Engineering Guidelines for Planning and Designing Hydroelectric Developments, Volume 4, Small Scale Hydro. Detterman, R.L., T.P. Miller, M.E. Yount, and F.H. Wilson, 1981, Geologic Map of the Chignik and Sutwik Island Quadrangles, Alaska, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-1229, U.S. Geological Survey, Fairbanks Alaska. Information Insights, 2008, The Lake and Peninsula Borough Regional Energy Plan, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Department of Energy, 2005, HOMER Version 2.1, Micropower Optimization Software Model, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. U.S. Department of Interior, 1980, Reconnaissance Evaluation of Small, Low -Head Hydroelectric Installations, Water and Power Resources Service, Engineering and Research Center, Denver Colorado. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1980, Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study For Small Hydropower Projects, Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Alaska, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009, Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS), EM 1110-2-1304. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 9-1 Knight Piesold C O N S U L T I NO Section 10.0 -Acronyms and Abbreviations T degrees Fahrenheit amsl above mean sea level efs cubic feet per second cfslmi cubic feet per second per square mile CLNC Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation COE cost of energy DFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game HDPE high -density polyethylene Knight P16sold Knight Piesoid and Co. kV kilovolts kW kilowatts LPB Lake and Peninsula Borough LPSD Lake and Peninsula School District O and M operation and maintenance Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Feasibility Study, Rev A 10.1 Knight Piesold G O H S U R T I N a Figures Z N m Q 0 U QQ f r o Z Y w o g Yw O W0 e W N. o 3 w 2 p Z z2 ~> '*AO o a La O a O K W o� O UU -i �� NO z NO z u� a' W O a a N yg w p� Y z ph o a w a w v~i 3 g 2a - w �^ flow R U W cl O z F- U O a. LU U) (D Q J VI J _ Q H 3 � c� 0 �a p m w 5 15 Q yF90 z Y }_ a x a uj �z �p= U U¢ Q Z_ m •�> N F / z g O J / a Q o F U � Q U a U PQ VI ~ y e b a U TT 0 CCDy J CO N C C N N W N LO C N c o Y m m0 c Ln y co U u"' Y Ln o $ z o O y 2 v C I` � v O } 3 }= o C a y 0 G 3 L J� o z � I a a z o z� a • F o o �m f 'a o c ao R C N U —"M a. co L Q lA.L� LL Q LL C� C m w Z Q C) CD CD C) CD N CD co CD � N r r (sliemol!N) }ndinp JOmOd ac � U C U) U 7 CL ID C in Q E m co � 0 p p O 0 0 s p C E 7 0 7 U) to En w ca cu m co N CO ULo d 0 � cu � Q N N C O N C ca C mD N 0 Z U w O z U O n w U) Ca Q J I I Q co w LL Z Q 0 0 o a a o a o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 m co I- cQ U') co N (s}lemol!N);ndlnp JOmOd a) E Or t c m U C co U C (D cn Q 2 E � M O O O 7i � ai c E o:3rn E 0 @mar N E m m EEF 0030 U, 'D N Q7 a) C _0 O O a) w s L LO m C m � � — CN M to +4-7 O z Knig Cp NSsULTING Appendix A Cost (Estimates Appendix A-1 RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Chigntk Lake Hydroelectric Project Alternative 1--Bear Creek Pnnt 1/27110 16:30 ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT RATE AMOUNT PRELIMINARY & GENERAL Mobilization and Demobilization (6% of Constr. Costs) L.S. 1 $111,000 $111.000 ITE DEVELOPMENT Clear Brush and Chip or Burn Residue acres 3.5 $10,000 $35,000 Site Access Tracks mi 3.00 $20,000 $60,000 DIVERSION WEIR AND INTAKE WORKS Diversion and Care of Water L.S. 1 $5,000 $5,000 Excavation for weir c.y. 25 $200 $5,000 Weir and valve L.S. 1 $30,000 $30,000 Intake Screen L.S. 1 $5,000 $5.000 PENSTOCK AND ACCESSORIES HDPE Pipe SDR 32.5, 12-inch Nominal Diameter Lf 475 $13 $6,033 HDPE Pipe SDR 21, 12anch Nominal Diameter I.f 641 $19 $12,339 HDPE Pipe SDR 11, 14-inch Nominal Diameter Lf. 3.269 $42 $137,88 Penstock Restraints (20-ft intervals) ea. 180 $20 $3,600 Eleciro-ccuplings (50-ft intervals) each 88 $10 $880 Helicopter Transport from Chignik Bay to site L.S. 1 $35,000 $35,000 installation I,f. 4,385 $30 $131,55 POWERHOUSE and ANCILLARY SERVICES Foundation Treatment (2%of Civil Works) L.S. 1 $1,000 $1.000 Civil Works and Steel Building (20' x 20' x 10') L.S. 1 $50,000 $50,00 Concrete c.y. 8 $1,000 $8100 Tailrace L.S. 1 $4.000 $4,000 POWER GENERATION (Water to Wire Package) Double -nozzle 97 kW Pelton turbine and 125 kW generator L.S. 1 $177,000 $177,00 Communications system L.S. 1 $25,000 $25,000 Transport from Seattle to Chignik Bay L.S. 1 $5.000 $5.000 HelicopterTransport from Chignik Bay to Site L.S. 1 $15,000 $15,000 Installation & commissioning L.S. 1 $50,000 $50,00 STEP-UP TRANSFORMER, TRANSMISSION LINE Step -Up Transformer L.S. 1 $30,000 $30.000 Transmission Line (12.5 KV), no existing access' mile 2.06 $300,000 $618,000 Transmission Line (12.5 KV) along existing road mile 1,03 $200.000 $206,000 Submarine Cable mile 0.06 $500,000 $40,000 Switchgear L.S. 1 $10,000 $10,000 ELECTRIC BOILER AND CONTROL SYSTEM Electric Boiler` L.S. 1 $15.000 $15.000 Supervisory Controller L.S. 1 $100,000 $100,000 Secondary Load Controller L.S. 1 $35.000 $35,000 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $1,967,28 ALLOWANCE FOR INDETERMINATES (5% of Constr. Cost) % 5 $98,000 CONTINGENCY 25°/ of Construction Cast) % 25 $492.000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,557,288 Engineering, Administration & Construction Management % 10 $256.000 Permitting and Environmental Studies' L.S. 1 $140.000 Legal Fees L.S. 1 $60.000 Subtotal Other Costs $456,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,013,288 Rev 0 - Final Notes: 1. Assumes that wetland areas would be avoided 2. Assumes the existing hot water tank could be used 3. Includes one stream gage installation, one year of streamflow data collection, and a fisheries survey Appendix A-2 RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Chignik Lake Hydroelectric Project Alternative 2-Cucumber Creek Pnnt 1127110 1&31 ITEM UNIT I QUANTITY UNi7 RATE AMOUNT I PRELIMINARY & GENERAL Mobilization and Demobilization (7%of Constr. Costs) L.S. 1 $158.000 $168.000 SITE DEVELOPMENT Clear Brush and Chip or Burn Residue acres 5.9 $10.000 $59,000 Site Access Tracks mi 3.10 $20,000 $62,000 DIVERSION WEIR AND INTAKE WORKS Diversion and Care of Water L.S. 1 $2.000 $2,000 Excavation for weir c.y. 25 $200 $5,000 Weir and valve L.S. 1 $30,000 $30,000 Intake Screen L,S. 1 $5,000 $5,000 PENSTOCK AND ACCESSORIES HOPE Pipe SOR 32.5, 12-inch Nominal Diameter 11 1,072 $13 $13,614 HOPE Pipe SDR 21. 12-inch Nominal Diameter 1.f 232 519 $4,466 HDPE Pipe SDR 11, 14-inch Nominal Diameter I.f. 1.783 $42 $75,207 Penstock Restraints (20 ft intervals) ea. 154 $20 $3,08 Eleciro-couplings (50-fi intervals) each 61 $10 $61 Helicopter Transport from Chignik Bay to site L.S. 1 $38,500 $38,500 Installation I.f. 3,087 $30 $92,61 POWERHOUSE and ANCILLARY SERVICES Foundation Treatment (2% of Civil Works) L.S. 1 $1.000 $1,000 Civil Works and Steel Building (20' x 20' x 10') L.S. 1 $50,000 $50,000 Concrete c.y. 8 $1,000 $8.000 Tailrace L.S. 1 $4,000 $4.000 POWER GENERATION (Water to Wire Package) Double -nozzle 113 kW Pelton turbine and 143 kW generator L.S. 1 $178,675 $178.67 Communications system L.S. 1 $25,000 $25,000 Transport from Seattle to Chignik Say L.S. 1 $5,000 $5,000 HelicopterTransportfrom Chignik Bay to Site L.S. 1 $16.500 $16,500 Installation & commissioning L.S. 1 $50.000 $50,000 STEP-UP TRANSFORMER, TRANSMISSION LINE Step -Up Transformer L.S. 1 $30,000 $30,000 Transmission Line (12.5 KV), no existing access' mile 4.32 $300,000 $1,296,00 Transmission Line (12.5 KV) along existing road mile $200.000 Submarine Cable mile 0.08 $500,000 $40,000 Switchgear L.S. 1 $10,000 $10,00 ELECTRIC BOILER ANO CONTROL SYSTEM Electric Boiler2 L.S. 1 $15,000 $15,00 Supervisory Controller L.S. 1 $100,000 $100,000 Secondary Load Controller L.S. 1 $35,000 $35,000 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $2,413,262 ALLOWANCE FOR INDETERMINATES (5% of Constr. Cost) 5 $121,000 CONTINGENCY (25% of Construction Cost) % 25 $603.000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $3.137,262 Engineering, Administration & Construction Management % 10 $314,000 Permitting and Environmental Studies' L.S. 1 $140,00 Legal Foes L.S. 1 $60,00 Subtotal Other Costs $514.001) TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,651,26 Rev 0 - Final Notes: 1. Assumes that wetland areas would be avoided 2. Assumes the existing hot water tank could be used 3. Includes one streamage installation, one year of streamflow data collection, and a fisheries survey Appendix A-3 RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Chignik Lake Hydroelectric Project Alternative 3--Landing Creek Print N27116 16:32 ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT RATE AMOUNT PRELIMINARY & GENERAL Mobilization and Demobilization (6% of Constr. Costs) L.S. 1 $73,000 $73,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT Clear Brush and Chip or Burn Residue acres 1.5 $10,000 $15,000 Site Access Tracks mi 1.23 $20,000 $24,600 DIVERSION WEIR AND INTAKE WORKS Diversion and Care of Water L.S. 1 $5,000 $5,000 Excavation for weir c.y. 25 $200 $5,000 Weir and valve L.S. 1 $30,000 $30.00 Intake Screen L.S. 1 $5,000 $5,000 PENSTOCK AND ACCESSORIES HOPE Pipe SDR 32.5, 12-inch Nominal Diameter Lf 1,161 $13 $14,745 HOPE Pipe SOR 21, 12-inch Nominal Diameter Lf 435 $19 $8,374 HOPE Pipe SDR 11, 14-inch Nominal Diameter i.f. 1,377 $42 $58,082 Penstock Restraints (20-R intervals) ea. 149 $20 $2,980 Electro-couplings (50-ft intervals) each 60 $10 $600 Helicopter Transport from Chignik Bay to site L.S. 1 $35,000 $35,00 Installation If. 2,973 $30 $89,19 POWERHOUSE and ANCILLARY SERVICES Foundation Treatment (2% of Civil Works) L.S. 1 $1,000 $1.000 Civil Works and Steel Building (20' x 20' x 10') L.S. 1 $50,000 $50.000 Concrete c.y. 8 $1,000 $6.000 Tailrace L.S. 1 $4,000 $4.000 POWER GENERATION (Water to Wire Package) Double -nozzle 83 kW Patton turbine and 110 kW generator L.S. 1 $177,000 $177,000 Communications system L.S. 1 $25,000 $25,000 Transport from Seattle to Chignik Bay L.S. 1 $5,000 $5,000' HelicopterTransportfrom Chignik Bay to Site L.S. 1 $15.000 $15,000 Installation & commissioning L.S. 1 $60.000 $50,000 STEP-UP TRANSFORMER, TRANSMISSION LINE Step -Up Transformer L.S. 1 $30,000 $30,000 Transmission Line (12.5 KV), no existing access' mile 0,64 $300.000 $192,000 Transmission Line (12.5 KV) along existing road mile 1,03 $200,000 $206,00 Submarine Cable mile $500,000 Switchgear L.S. 1 $10,000 $10,000 ELECTRIC BOILER AND CONTROL SYSTEM Electric Boiled L.S. 1 $15,000 $15.00 Supervisory Controller L.S. 1 $100,000 $100,000 Secondary Load Controller L.S. 1 $35,000 $35.000 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $1.289,570 ALLOWANCE FOR INDETERMINATES (5% of Constr, Cost) % 5 $64.000 CONTINGENCY (25% of Construction Cost) % 25 $322,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,675,570 Engineering, Administration & Construction Management % 10 $168,000 Permitting and Environmental Studies' L.S. f $140.000 Legal Fees L.S. 1 $60,000 Subtotal Other Costs $368,00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,043.57 Rev 0 - Final Notes: 1. Assumes that wetland areas would be avoided 2. Assumes the existing hot water tank could be used 3. Includes one stream gage installation, one year of streamfiow data collection, and a fisheries survey Knight Pie'sold C4NSV L.TING Appendix B HOMER Model Output B-1 Alternative 1 at $3.781gallon Diesel B-2 Alternative 1 at $4.621gallon Diesel B-3 Alternative 1 at $5.541gallon Diesel B-4 Alternative 2 at $3.781gallon Diesel B-5 Alternative 2 at $4.621gallon Diesel B-6 Alternative 2 at $5.541gallon Diesel B-7 Alternative 3 at $3.781gallon Diesel B-8 Alternative 3 at $4.621gallon Diesel B-9 Alternative 3 at $5.541gallon Diesel Knight Piesold C6N8 LFLTEKG Appendix B-1 Alternative 1 at $3.781gallon Diesel System Report -Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 1 of 6 Sensitivity case CL_town Scaled Average: 1,150 kWhld Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWhld Diesel Price: 1 $IL Entegrity EW50 Hub Height: 30 rn Generator 4 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 System architecture :!Hydro 125 kW jGenerator 4 45.8 kW! Generator 3 81.9 kW; !Generator 2113 kW !Generator 1 135 kW Cost summary Total net present cost $ 3,854,639 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.3381kWh Operating cost $ 42,3871yr 4,000,000 3,000,000 1qd 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 -1 ,000,000 Cash Flow Summary ® Hydro Generator 4 — Generator 3 — Generator 2 — Generator 1 Boiler Other Capital Replacement Operating Fuel Salvage Net Present Costs Capital jj Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage i Total Component Hydro 3,013,000 0. 0 0 0 3,013,000 Generator 4 0 -- 0. — 18,288 69,735 -7,701 80,321 Generator 3 0 0 238 1,485-13.097-11,374 Generator 2 0 0 0 0-16,252-16,252 Generator 1 0 0 0 0-15,635-15,635 Boiler 0 0 0 350,367 0 350.367 Other 0 0 454,211 0 0 454,211 t System 3,013,000 0 472,737 421,586-52,685 3,854,639 Annualized Costs Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component ($lyr) i ($lyr) ($/yr) ($1yr) ($/yr) ($lyr) Hydro 151,741 0 0 0 0 151,741 file://C:1Documents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TempWtemative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 2 of 6 Generator 4 0 1 0 1 921 3,512 ` -388 4,045 Generator 3 0 + 0 12 75 1 -660 -573 Generator 2 0: 0 0' 1-- 0 -818 -818 Generator 1 0- -- - 0 0 0 -787. - -787 Boiler o f� 0 1 0 0 17,645 0 17,645 - - - - ---- t - Other 0 0 . 22,875 0 0 22,875 System 151,741 0 23,808 r 21,232 -2,653 194,127 1,000.000 0 a -1,000.000 m V -2.000.000 0 _-3.000,000 -4,000,000 Electrical T1 Production Fraction Component ' (kWhlyr) I 1 Hydro turbine 788,940 99% Generator 4 8,465 1 % Generator 3 225 I 0% Generator 2 0 0% Generator 1 0 0% Total 797,630 100% 100 _ 80 Y BQ 40 O a- 20 0 Year Hurnber �recsr�s rrvuucuvn I I � I � I � JaI-,-� n 'F.l eb Mar Aor Mav Jun ul Aua lSao Oct Nov Dec Consumption Fraction I Load kWhlyr) ! AC primary load 419,749 100% Total - - �� 419,749 +� 100% Quantity Value I Units I 1 Excess electricity 377,846 kWhlyr Unmet load 0.00 kWhlyr Capacity shortage 0.00 ; kWhlyr Renewable fraction 0.830 Generator 4 — Generator 3 — Generator2 Generator 1 — Hydro — Capital Replacement Salvage Operating Fuel Thermal I - -r 1 fileWCADocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal Settings\Temp\Altemative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 3 of { Production Fraction . Component - -- - - (kWhlyr) Genera tor 4 5,740 1% Generator 3 112 0% Boiler - - 147,584 28% Excess electricity 377,846 71% Total j 531,283 100% 80 80 m 40 E `a 20 0 II II II II IND Load Consumption Fraction -- (kWhlyr) Thermal load 436,174 100% Total 436,174 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 95,109 kWhlyr Hydro I Quantity Value Units 1 Nominal capacity 125 kW Mean output I 90.1 kW Capacity factor 72.1 % Total production 788.940 kWhlyr Quantity Value : Units Minimum output 75.1 kW i 1 Maximum output 98.2 kW Hydro penetration 188 % Hours of operation 8,760 hrlyr Levelized cost 0.192 $/kWh 24 0 Generator 4 Quantity Hours of operation Number of starts Operational life Capacity factor Value Units 614 hr/yr 410 startslyr 97.7 yr 2.11 % j Generator4 Generator3 Generator2 Generator 1 Boiler E • aess Ele drio4 kVV 99A 04.2 89.4 84.6 79.8 75.0 file:HCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local SettingslTemp\Alternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 4 of 6 Fixed generation cost I 3.39 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.309 $/kWhyr Quantity T ; Valuer Units Electrical production 8,465 kWhiyr Mean electrical output 13.8 kW i Min. electrical output 13.7 kW Max. electrical output 21.0 ; kW Thermal production +� 5,740 rkWhlyr ; Mean thermal output 9.35 kW Min. thermal output 9.33 kW Max. thermal output 1 12.6 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 3,512 Liyr Specific fuel consumption ` 0.415 LIkWh Fuel energy input 34,558 kWhiyr Mean electrical efficiency 24.5 % Mean total efficiency 41.1 % li 24 �, 18 13 0 5 12 0 x a 0 Generator 3 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 8 , hrlyr Number of starts 8 starts/yr Operational life 7,500 yr Capacity factor 0.0313 % Fixed generation cost 3.53 I $Ihr Marginal generation cost 0.279 $/kWhyr Quantity Value }—U—nits Electrical production 225 kWhlyr Mean electrical output ; 28.1 kW Min. electrical output 24.6 kW Max. electrical output 35.5 kW Thermal production 112 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 14.1 I kW s - Min. thermal output 12.7 kW Max. thermal output 16.9 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 74.8 f Liyr Specific fuel consumption 0,333 LlkWh Fuel energy input 736 ' kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 30.5 % kW 24.0 19.2 14.4 9.6 4.8 0.0 fileWCADocurnents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TempUlternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Mean total efficiency 45.8 1 % Page 5 of 6 24 0 Generator 2 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr E Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr - Capacity factor I 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 11.5 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.212 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW iMin, thermal output 0.00 kW j Max. thermal output 0,00 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption I 0 : Uyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr may Jun Jul Aug zjep ua[ NOV uee Generator 1 Quantity Value Units Flours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts i 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacity factor 0.00 % 1 Fixed generation cost 1 9.29 $/hr Marginal generation cost 1 0.254 $/kWhyr kW 36.0 28.8 21.6 14.4 7.2 0 -0 k1N 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 filea/CADocuments and SettingsljdwyerTocal SettingslTemp\Altemative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Quantity T Value Units Electrical production I 0.00 kWhlyr Mean electrical output ' 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 ! kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.60 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity T Value Units Fuel consumption 1 0 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 LIkWh Fuel energy input 0 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 ` % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % f-_pnprnfnr d jun Jul Aug Sep LIM Nov uec Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kglyr) Carbon dioxide 56,132 Carbon monoxide 23.3 Unburned hydocarbons ; 2.58 Particulate matter 1.76 Sulfur dioxide 114 Nitrogen oxides _ 208 kW t .D 03 0.6 DA 0.2 0.0 Page 6 of 6 fileWCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local SettingslTemp\Alternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 Knight Piesold O O N S U LT I NO Appendix B-2 Alternative 1 at $4.621gallon Diesel System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 1 of 6 Sensitivity case CL_town Scaled Average: 1,150 kWhld Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWhld Diesel Price: 1.22 $/L Entegrity EW50 Hub Height: 30 m Generator 4 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multipiier: 1.5 System architecture Hydro 125 kW Generator 445.8 kW Generator 3 81.9 kW Generator 2113 kW Generator 1 135 kW Cost summary Total net present cost 1 $ 3,947,388 Level ized cost of energy $ 0.3221kWh Operating cost $ 47,0581yr 4,000,000 3,000,000 I" 115 0 2,000,000 1 ,000,000 CL -1 ,000,000 Cash Flow Summary — Hydro — Generator 4 Generator 3 — Generator 2 Generator 1 — Boiler Other Capital Replacement Operating Fuel Salvage Net Present Costs Capital Replacement : O&M I Fuel Salvage Total Component - a Hydro 3,013,000 0 0 0 0 3,013,000 Generator 4 0 0 18,288 85,077 -7,701 95,663 Generator 0 0 238 1,812-13,097-11,047 Generator 2 0 0 0 0-16,252-16,252 Generator 1 0 0 0 0-15,635-15,635 Boiler 0 0 0 427,447 0 427,447 Other 0 0 454,211 0 0 454,211 System 3,013,000 0 472,737 514,335-52,685 3,947,388 Annualized Costs Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component ($lyr) ($lyr) ($lyr) ($lyr) ($lyr) ($/yr) Hydro 151,741 0 0 0 0 151,741 file: //C:\Documents and Scttingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TempWternative 1--Bear Cr,htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 2 of 6 Generator 4 0 , 0 1 921 4,285 -388 4,818 Generator 3 0 i 0 12� 91 -660 -556 Generator 2 0 0 0 0 j -818 -818 Generator 1 --- 0 - 0 1--- 0 - 0 I -787 -787 Boiler 0 O F 0 21,527 0 21,527 - I - - Other 0 0 , 22,875 0 0 22,875 System i 151,741 0 23,808 25,903 -2,653 198,798 1.000.000 0 a -1 ,000,000 W V 75 -2,000,000 0 x -3,000 €300 -4,000 000 Electrical Cash Flows 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10111213141516171B192021222324252627282930 Production Fraction Component jl (kWhlyr) I Hydro turbine 788,940 i 99% Generator 4 1 8.465 1 1% i Generator 3 225 - 0% Generator 2 0 S 0% Generator 1 0 0% Total 797,630 100% . 100 Year Number rieetric r roaucuon 0enerator4 Gene rator3 Generator2 �- Generator 1 Hydro 0 iJ_an;F.eb-1Mulu iM�ay lJrun iaJtlAugu!S ep ;b�c�ov lDeii Consumption Fraction Load i (kWhlyr) I _ AC primary load 419,749 100% Total 419,749 - 100% Quantity Value Units Excess electricity 377,846 I kWhlyr Unmet load 0.00 kWhlyr Capacity shortage 0.00 kWhlyr Renewable fraction 0.830 I — Capital Replacement Salvage. — Operating — Fuel Thermal 1 file:/1CADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TempWtemative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 3 of 6 Production Fraction Component - (kWhlyr) Generator 5,740 1% . _ - Generator 3 — 112 0% Hailer - 147,584 28% Excess electricity 377,846 71 % Total 531,283 100% so 60 E40 `w 20 0 Tl eE FuiayT JU I A uu9 epic �av ec Consumption Fraction Load (kWhlyr) Thermal load 436,174 100% Total L436,174 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy : 95,109 . kWhlyr Hydro I Quantity Value Units Nominal capacity 125 kW Mean output 90.1 kW Capacity factor + 72.1 % Total production 788,940 ! kWhlyr Quantity , Value Units Minimum output 75.1 kW Maximum output 98.2 kW t Hydro penetration 188 % Hours of operation 8,760 hrlyr Levelized cost 0.192 $lkWh 24 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nou Dec Generator Generator Z Generato:2 Generator 1 -= Boiler E eess Electricity Generator 4 kW 99.0 94.2 69.4 e4.6 79,8 75.0 Quantity ' Value Units Hours of operation 614 hrlyr Number of starts 410 startslyr Operational life 97.7 yr Capacity factor 2.11 % file://C:1Documents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Altemative 1--Bear Cr.hitm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 4 of 6 Fixed generation cost 3.72 $/hr Marginal generation Cost 0.377 : $lkWhyr Quantity Value ! Units Electrical production 8,465 ' kWh/yr Mean electrical output 13.8 kW Min. electrical output ! 13.7 kW Max. electrical output 21.0 ; kW Thermal production 5,740 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 9.35 kW Min, thermal output 9.33 kW Max. thermal output 12.6 kW Quantity rl Value Units Fuel consumption 3,512 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.415 LIkWh Fuel energy input 4,558 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 24.5 % r Mean total efficiency 41.1 % 24 0 Generator 3 i Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 8 r hrlyr Number of starts 8 startslyr Operational life 1 7,500 yr Capacity factor 0.0313 % { Fixed generation cost 1 3.87 $Ihr 1 Marginal generation cost 0.341 $IkWhyr Quantity Value ', Units Electrical production 225 kWhlyr ! i Mean electrical output 28.1 ; kW Min. electrical output 24.6 kW Max_ electrical output 35.5 , kW -a Thermal production 112 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 14.1 kW Min. thermal output 12.7 kW Max. thermal output 16.9 ` kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 1 74.8 Uyr Specific fuel consumption 0.333 UkWh Fuel energy input 736 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 30.5 % � 1 kW 24-0 19-2 14.4 9.6 4.8 0.0 filca/CADocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTempwterrtative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Mean total efficiency. 45.8 % __� Page S of 6 Generator 2 Quantity Value y Units 1 Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr i Operational life 1,000 yr 1 Capacity factor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 13.6 $/hr 1 Marginal generation cost 0.258 ' $IkWhyr i Quantity Value Units 1 Electrical production ! 0.00 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 : kW Quantity Value ! Units Fuel consumption _ 0 j L/yr { Specific fuel consumption 0.000 UkWh Fuel energy input 0 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency i 0.0 ti Mean total efficiency .1 ' 0.01 % -� 24 0 jan red near Apr may .tun Jul Aug Sep ua NOV ueo Generator 1 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 . hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacity factor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 10.9 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.310 $IkWhyr kW 36.0 m 28.8 21-6 14.4 72 an kW 1.0 0.8 0.6 DA 0.2 0.0 file)/CADocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal Settings\TempWtemative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Quantity -- _,. Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 i kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW I Thermal production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW I Min. thermal output 0.00 kW — Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 1 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % kVV I'D 0.8 0.6 DA 0.2 0.0 Emissions Pollutant ! Emissions (kglyr) Carbon dioxide 56,132 Carbon monoxide 23.3 Unburned hydocarbons 2.58 Particulate matter 1.76 Sulfur dioxide 114 Nitrogen oxides 208 Page 6 of 6 file:HCADocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTemplAlternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 Knight Piesold C O N S U L T I N G Appendix B-3 Alternative 1 at $5.541gallon Diesel System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr. hmr Page 1 of 6 Sensitivity case CL_town Scaled Average: 1,150 kWhld Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWhld Diesel Price: 1.46 $/L Entegrity EW50 Hub Height: 30 m Generator O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 System architecture Hydra 125 kW -Generator 4 45.8 kW Generator 3 81.9 kW Generator 2113 kW Generator 1 135 kW Cost summary Total net present cost $ 4,048,569 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.3041kWh Operating cost 1 $ 52,1531yr 4,000,000 3,000,000 40 is V 2,000,000 1,000,000 CL 0 — Hydro — Generator 4 — Generator 3 — Generator 2 — Generator 1 — Boiler Other -1,000,000 4 Capital Replacement Operating Fuel Salvage Net Present Costs Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component - — Hydro 3,013,000 0 0 0 0 3,013,000 Generator 4 0 0 18,288 101,813 -7,701 112,399 Generator 3 0 0 238 2,168 -13,097 -10,690 Generator 2 0 0 0 0-16,252 -16,252 Generator 1 0 0 0 0 -15,635 . -15,635 Boiler 0 0 0 511,535 0 511,535 Other 0 0 454,211 0 0 454,211 System 3,013,000 0 472,737 615,516 -52,685 4,048,568 Annualized Costs Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component i ($lyr) ($iyr) 1 ($lyr) ($lyr) i, ($/yr) ($lyr) Hydra 151,741 0 0 0 0 151,741 file://C:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocai Settings\TempWternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Generator 0 0 921 l 5,128 -388 5,661 Generators 3 0 h 0 12 109 -660 -538 Generator 2 0 0 0, 0 -818 -818 Generator 1 0 0 T 0. 0 -787 -787 Boiler - --- 0 - - 0 0 25,762 0 25,762 Other -- 0 0 22,875 0 0 22,875 System 151,741 0 23,808 30,999 -2,653 203,894 Cash Flows 1 ,000,oaa t7 0 LL -1 ,000,000 V 3-2,000,000 0 _-3,000,000 -4,000,000 Electrical 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 Year Humber Production Fraction Component (kWhlyr) � I Hydra turbine 788,940 99% Generator 8,465 1% Generator 3 225 0% Generator 2 0 0% Generator 1 0 0% Total 797,630 ' 100% Manthh, Avere a Electric Production 100 80 _ Y 00 - 40 a 20 - -- 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug se Oct Nou Oec Consumption Fraction Load � - - - - - I (kWhlyr) I AC primary load 419,749 100% Total 419,749 100% Quantity _ Value Units Excess electricity 377,846 kWhlyr Unmet load 0,00 kWhlyr Capacity shortage I 0.00 1 kWhlyr Renewable fraction 0.830 1 Generator 4 Generator 3 Generator2 Generator 1 Hydro Capital Replacement Salvage Operating — Fuel Thermal file:HC:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTemp\Alternative 1--Bear Cr.htm Page 2 of 6 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 3 of 6 Production Fraction Component (kWhlyr) � Generator 4 5,740 1 % Generator 3 _ 112 _ 0% Boiler _ 147,584 28% Excess electricity 377,846 71 % Total - 531,283 _ 100% 80 R BO Z' @40 dl 20 0 i nermai rruummun Consumption Fraction Load - - (kWhlyr) Thermal load 436,174 100% Total 436,174 100% T Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 95,109 kWhlyr Hydro Quantity I Value I Units Nominal capacity 125 kW Mean output 90.1 i kW Capacity factor 72.1 % Total production 788,940 kWhlyr Quantity Value ' Units Minimum output 75.1 kW Maximum Output 98.2 I kW Hydro penetration 188 { % Hours of operation 8,760 hr/yr Levelized cost 0.192 $/kWh 24 0 Generator 4 Generator4 Generator3 = Generator2 Generator Q Boller E cess Electricity KVLr 99.0 94.2 89.4 84.6 79.8 75.0 Quantity Value ; Units Hours of operation 614 , hrlyr Number of starts , 410 . starts/yr Oper ational life 97.7 yr Capacity factor 2.11 % file://C:1Documents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TcmplAlternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Page 4 of 6 Fixed generation cost 4.07 j $Ihr Marginal generation cost W 0.451 + $1kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 8,465 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 13.8 1 kW Min. electrical output 13.7 1 kW Max. electrical output 21.0 kW Thermal production 5,740 kWhlyr ` Mean thermal output 9.35 kW Min. thermal output 9.33 kW Max. thermal output _ 12.6 j kW -� Quantity W Value Units Fuel consumption 3,512 Llyr , i Specific fuel consumption 0.415 LIkWh Fuel energy input 34,558 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency ! 24.5 % Mean total efficiency 41.1 % 24 0 Generator 3 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 8 hrlyr 1 Number of starts 8 startslyr Operational life 7,500 ` yr Capacity factor j 0.0313 : % Fixed generation cost 1 4.23 $Ihr i Marginal generation cost ; 0.407 i $IkWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 225 ! kWhlyr ' Mean electrical output 28.1 kW Min. electrical output 24.6 kW Max. electrical output 35.5 i kW Thermal production 112 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 14.1 kW Min, thermal output 12.7 i kW Max. thermal output 16.9 kW - Quantity - : Value Units Fuel consumption 1 74.8 1 Llyr 1 Specific fuel consumption 0.333 LIkWh Fuel energy input 736 kWhlyr kVV 24.0 19.2 14.4 9.6 4.8 0.0 Mean electrical efficiency 30.5 % file:HCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Alternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Mean total efficiency 45.8 % Page 5 of 6 a 0 x Generator 2 Quantity I Value Units Hours of operation 0 hrlyr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacity factor 0,00 % Fixed generation cost 15.8 $Ihr Marginal generation cost : 0.309 $IkWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production j 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 y kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean thermal output P 0.00 ' kW Min, thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 1 0.00 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 LIkWh Fuel energy input 0 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency _L 0.0 % 24 1s � 12 0 0 x g 4 Generator 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep uct NOV Dec Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hrlyr Number of starts 0 ' starts/yr Operational life rt 1,000 yr Capacity factor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 1 12.6 $Ihr Marginal generation cost 0.371 $IkWhyr kW 315.0 28.8 21.8 14.4 7.2 0.0 kW 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 file: //C: \Documents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Alternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 1--Bear Cr.hmr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean electrical output ; 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 I kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 : kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW - Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 LIkWh Fuel energy input i 0 !kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 ` % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 0 Generator 7 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun .Jul Aug Sep Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kglyr) Carbon dioxide 56,132 Carbon monoxide 23.3 Unburned hydocarbons 2.58 Particulate matter 1.76 Sulfur dioxide I - 114 Nitrogen oxides 208 Nov Dec kw 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Page 6 of 6 file:HCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local SettingsUemp\Alternative 1--Bear Cr.htm 1/28/2010 Knight Piesold C O N S U L T I N G Appendix B-4 Alternative 2 at $3.781gallon Diesel System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 1 of 6 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Sensitivity case CL_town Scaled Average: 1,150 kWh/d Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWhld Diesel Price: 1 $/L Generator 4 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 System architecture Hydro 126 kW Generator 4 45. 8 kW Generator 3 81.9 kW 'Generator 2113 kW `,Generator 1 135 kW: Cost summary Total net present cost i $ 4,438,298 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.408/kWh Operating cost $ 39,650Iyr 4.000.000 3,000,000 V 2,000,000 r 1,000,000 x 0 -1,000,000 Capital Replacement Operating Fuel Salvage — Hydro — Generator 4 — Generator 3 — Generator 2 — Generator 1 Boiler - Other Net Present Costs Component Capital Replacement } O&M Fuel Salvage Total _.. _ i ($) ($) Hydro 3,651,000 0 0 0 0 3,651 p00 Generator 4 0 0 15,667 59,744 -8,190 67,220 Generator 3 0 0 208 1,261-13,103-11,633 Generator 2 0 0 0 0-16,252 ,-16,252 Generator 1 0 0 0 0:-15,635-15,635 Boiler 0 0 0 309,386 0 309,386 Other - 0 0 454,211 0 D ! 454,211 System 3,651,000 0 470,086 370,391 ;-53,180 4,438,299 Annualized Costs Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total I Component ($lyr) G ($/yr) ($/yr) ($lyr) I ($lyr) ($lyr) Hydro 183,872 0 . 0 0 0 183,872 file://CADocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTemplAlternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 2 of 6 Generator 4 0 € 0 789 3,009 -412 3,385 Generator 3 0 0 10 64 -660 -586 Generator 2 0 0 0. 0 -818 -818 Generator 1 0 0 0 0 -787 -787 Boiler -- - 0 ,- - - 0 0 15,581 0 15,581 Other 0 0 22,875 0 0 22,875 —f System 183,872 0 23,674 18,654 -2,678 223,522 Cash Flows 1,000,000 0 3 0 U- -1,000,000 V -2,000,000 a _-3,000,000 -4,000.000 Electrical Production Fraction Component (kWhlyr) � Hydro turbine 848,997 ' 99% Generator 7,253 f 1% `. Generator 3 190 _ 0% Generator 2 q ' 0% . Generator 1 0 0% Total t 856,439 _ 100% 12a 90 ea O a 30 0 Year Humber T 1=1 L 1111I ,, I Inl'7I"Il II IM111 II II ImnFIMI l II II II II II II II Il Il II ^ Consumption Fraction . Load (kWhlyr) AC primary load 419,749 100% Total f 419,749: 100% Quantity 1 Value J Units I Excess electricity 436,687 kWhlyr Unmet load j 0.00E kWhlyr Capacity shortage I 0.00 kWhlyr Renewable fraction 0,856 Generator4 Generator 3 Generator 2 Generator 1 = Hydro — Capital Replacement Salvage Operating ... Fuel Thermal - - 1 file: //CAD ocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local SettingslTemp\Altemative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 3 of b Production Fraction Component r (kWhlyr) 1�- - - — Generator4 4,918 1% Generator 3 96� 0% ; Boiler 130,322 23% Excess electricity 436,687 76% Total ` 572,022 : 100% sa � $a x £40 a 20 a iiimunm rruumuurr r Consumption Fraction Load (kWhlyr) Thermal load 436,174 100% Total I 436,174 100% Quantity Value I Units Excess thermal energy 135,848 1 kWhlyr Hydro I Quantity Value I Units Nominal capacity 126 kW Mean output 97 kW Capacity factor 77.1 % Total production . 848,997 kWh/yr Quantity Value Units Minimum output 76 1 kW Maximum output 114 kW Hydro penetration 202 % Hours of operation 8,760 hrlyr Levelized cost 0.217E ${kWh 24 0 Generator 4 Quantity Hours of operation Number of starts Operational life Capacity factor Value Units 526 hrlyr 355 startslyr 1 114 yr -- 1.81 I % ec Generator4 Generator3 Generator2 Generator 1 Boiler Excess Electricity kW 1t6 1D8 1DD 92 84 76 I file:HCADocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTempWternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hzxir Page 4 of 6 Fixed generation cost 1 3.39 ' $Ihr j j Marginal generation cost 0.309 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units I Electrical production 7,253 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 13.8 kW Min. electrical output 13.7 kW Max. electrical output 20.1 kW Thermal production 4,918 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 9.35 kW Min. thermal output 9.33 kW j Max. thermal output 12.2 kW Quantity Value ' Units Fuel consumption 1 3,009 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.415 DkWh Fuel energy input 29,607 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 24.5 . % ' Mean total efficiency 41.1 % Generat©r 4 Z a x Aug Sep Generator 3 kW 21.0 16_8 12.6 8.4 4.2 0.0 Quantity Value I Units Hours of operation 7 hrlyr Number of starts j 7 startslyr Operational life j 8,571 ? yr Capacity factor 0.0264 % j Fixed generation cost ! 3.53 f' $Ihr j Marginal generation cost 0.279 i $!kWhyr Quantity Value Units li Electrical production i 190 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 27.1 kW I Min. electrical output 24.6 kW Max. electrical output 34.5 kW production 95.8 kWhlyr iThermal Mean thermal output + 13.7 kW Min. thermal output 12.7 ' kW Max. thermal output 16.5 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption i 63.5 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.335 LIkWh Fuel energy input j 625 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 30.3 % file: //C:1Documents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TernplA.ltermative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Mean total efficiency 45.7 . % Page 5 of 6 24 Generator 2 Quantity_ Value Units Hours of operation 0 hrlyr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacity factor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 11.5 $Ihr Marginal generation cost 0.212 `: $lkWhyr Quantity _ Value Units Electrical production j 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW f' Min, electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 1 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 ; kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity I Value Units Fuel consumption 0 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh ! Fuel energy input 0 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency I 0.0 % 24 0 Generator I Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 1 hrlyr Number of starts T 0 startslyr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacity factor C 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 9.29 $Ihr Marginai generation cost 1 0.254 $IkWhyr kW 36.0 28.8 21.6 14.4 7.2 0.0 kW 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 ob file:1/C:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTemplAlternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 6 of 6 Quantity Value Units ; Electrical production i 0.00 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW _1 Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output i 0.00 , kW Thermal production 0.00 ` kWh/yr Mean thermal output r 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW - Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % I kW 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kglyr) Carbon dioxide 49,317 Carbon monoxide 20 Unburned hydocarbons 2.21 Particulate matter 1.51 Sulfur dioxide 101 Nitrogen oxides 178 file://C:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTempWternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 Knight Pie'soId C O N S U L T I N G Appendix B-5 Alternative 2 at $4.621gallon Diesel System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 1 of 6 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Sensitivity case CL_town Scaled Average: 1,150 kWhld Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWhld Diesel Price: 1.22 $IL Generator 4 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 System architecture Hydro 126 kW I Generator 4 45.8 kW: Generator 3 81.9 kW Generator 2113 kW Generator 1 135 kW Cost summary Total net present cost $ 4,519,784 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.391/kWh Operating cost $ 43,754Iyr 4.000,000 3.000,000 S 1s V 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 -1,000,000 t-asn riuw Capital Replacement Operating Fuel Salvage Net Present Costs — Hydro — Generator 4 — Generator 3 — Generator 2 — Generator 1 — Boller Other Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage : Total Component - - -- - I - I -1 ($) ($) - - ($) ($) i ($) ($) Hydro 3,651,000 0 ' 0 0 0 3,651,000 Generator 0 ' 0 15,667 72,887 -8,190 80,364 Generator 3 0 0 208 1,539 -13,103 -11,356 Generator 2 0 0 0 0 -16,252 -16,252 Generator 1 0 0 0 0 -15,635 -15,635 Boiler 0 0 0 377,451 0 377,451 Other 0 0 454,211 0 0 ' 454,211 System 3,651,000 0 470,086 ` 451,877 -53,180 4,519,783 Annualized Costs Capital Replacement . O&M ! Fuel Salvage Total Component ($/yr) ! ($lyr) I ($Iyr) ($/yr) I ($/yr) ($tyr) Hydro 183,872 0 0 0 0 183,872 fi le://C: \Documents and SettingsljdwyerTocal SettingslTemplAlternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 2 of 6 Generator 4 0 0 789 3,671 -412 4,047 Generator 3 0 �f 0 , 10 78 l -660 -572 Generator 2- �- 0- 0 t - 0 0 - -818 - -818 Generator 1 0 0 i 0 0 1 -787 -787 Boiler -- 0 1 0 0 i 19,009 . 0 19,009 Other - 01 0 22.875 0 0 22,875 System 183,872 0 23,674 22,757 -2,678 227,625 1,000,000 0 n -1,000,000 m �i C-2,000,000 n z-3,000,000 -4,000,000 Electrical Production Fraction Component I (kWhlyr) I� Hydro turbine i 848,997 99% Generator 4 I 7,253 1 % Generator 3 190 0% Generator 2 0 0% Generator 1 0 0% Total 856,439 100% 120 90 Y 60 0 a 30 0 Cash Flows Year Number Consumption Fraction Load I (kWhlyr) 1 1 I AC primary load 419,749 100% Total 419,749 100% Quantity Value Units Excess electricity 436,687 kWhlyr Unmet load 0.00 kWhlyr Capacity shortage 0.00 kWhlyr Renewable fraction 0.856 262T28293t1 Generator4 Generator3 Gene rator2 Generator 1 Hydro Capital Replacement Salvage — Operating Fuel Thermal I I file://CADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 3 of 6 Production Fraction Component (kWhlyr) r i A Generator 4 4,918 1 % Generator 3 96 0% Boiler 130,322 23% Excess electricity 436,687 76% Total 572,022 100% 80 i Monthly Average Thermal Production � BQ Y E 40 `w 20 Jan Feb Mar Apr Ml-Lay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DI-Iec Consumption Fraction Load (kWhlyr) j Thermal load 436,174 100% Total 436,174 100% Quantity Value , Units Excess thermal energy , 135,848 kWhlyr Hydro Quantity I Value Units Nominal capacity 126 kW Mean output 97 kW Capacity factor 77.1 % Total production 848,997 i kWhlyr Quantity Value U its Minimum output 76 kW Maximum output 114 kW Hydro penetration 202 % Hours of operation 8,760 hrlyr Levelized cost 0.217 $/kWh 24 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep uct Nov Dec Generator Generator — Gene rator2 — Generator 1 — Boiler <. , E cess Electricity Generator 4 kW 118 108 100 92 84 76 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 526 hr/yr Number of starts 355 starts/yr Operational life - 114 yr Capacity factor 1.81 % iile:HCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TempWternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htrn 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 4 of 6 Fixed generation cost 3.72 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.377 $/kWhyr I Quantity : Value Electrical production Mean electrical output Min. electrical output Max. electrical output Thermal production Mean thermal output Min. thermal output Max. thermal output Quantity 7,253 13.8 13.7 20.1 4,918 9.35 9.33 12.2 Fuel consumption Specific fuel consumption Fuel energy input Mean electrical efficiency Mean total efficiency 24 a, le N O 'S 12 0 a x g 0 Generator 3 Units kWh/yr kW kW kW kWh/yr kW kW kW Value 3,009 0.415 29,607 24.5 41.1 Units Llyr LIkW h kWhlyr % Quantity Value Units j Hours of operation 7 hr/yr j1 Number of starts 7 ` starts/yr Operational life 8,571 yr Capacity factor 0.0264 % Fixed generation cost 3.87 $Ihr Marginal generation cost 0.341 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units ' Electrical production 190 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 27.1 kW Min. electrical output 24.6 ' kW Max. electrical output 34.5 ' kW Thermal production 95.8 kWhlyr Mean thermal output I 13.7 kW I Min. thermal output 12.7 kW Max. thermal output 16.5 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 1 63.5 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.335 L/kWh Fuel energy input 625 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 30.3 % kW 21.4 18.8 12.0 8.4 4.2 D.D frle:HCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Altermative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Mean total efficiency I 45.7 % (;PnPrainr 3 Oadnut >, 18 M to '6 12 0 0 x a 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Generator 2 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life — 1,000 yr Capacity factor 1 -- -- 1 0.00 9/6 Fixed generation cost 13.6 ; $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.258 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production ! 0.00 ' kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0,00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min, thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 } Uyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 UkWh ; Fuel energy input j 0 ' kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 1 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 0 Aug Sep kW 36.0 28.3 21.6 14.4 7.2 0.0 kVY 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 CI L Generator 1 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr 1 Capacity factor 1 0,00 % 1 Fixed generation cost 10.9 $Ihr Marginal generation cost ' 0.310 $/kWhyr Page 5 of 6 file:HC:1Documents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Altemative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 6 of 6 Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 r kWhlyr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00j kW Thermal production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 0.00 : kW J Min. thermal output 0.00 i kW Max. thermal output 0.00 ' kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 UkWh Fuel energy input 0 I kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 i % Mean total efficiency _- 0.0 % kW 1.0 ` 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep uct Nov Dec Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kglyr) Carbon dioxide 49,317 Carbon monoxide 20 Unburned hydocarbons 2.21 Particulate matter 1.51 Sulfur dioxide 101 Nitrogen oxides i 178 file:HC:IDocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTemp\Altemative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmm 1/28/2010 Knight Piesold CONISV LYING Appendix B-S Alternative 2 at $5.541gallon Diesel System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 1 of 6 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Sensitivity case CL_town Scaled Average: 1,150 kWhld Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWh/d Diesel Price: 1.46 $IL Generator 4 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 System architecture Hydro 126 kW Generator 4 45.8 kW, Generator 3 81.9 kW Generator 2113 kW Generator 1 135 kW ' Cost summary Total net present cost i $ 4,608,678 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.372/kWh Operating cost $ 48,2311yr 4,000,000 3,000.000 S 196 V 2,000,000 1,000,000 1'a 0 -1,000,000 Capital Replacement Operating Fuel salvage Net Present Costs *— Hydro — Generator 4 — Generator 3 — Generator 2 — Generator 1 — Boiler Other Capital i Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total I Component __.. _. __ - { ($) ($) ($) ($) Hydro 3,651,000 0 0 0 0I3,651,000 Generator 0 I 0 15,667 ; 87,226 -8,190 94,702 Generator 0 0 208 1,842-13,103-11,053 Generator 2 0 0 0 0-16,252-16,252 Generator 1 0 v 0 0 0-15,635-15,635 Boiler 0 I - 0 0 451,704 0 451,704 Other 0 I 0-- 454,211 0 0 454,211 - System 3,651,000 0 470,086 540,771-53,180 4,608,678 Annualized Costs Capital ! Replacement ' O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component ($/yr) 11 ($/yr) ($IYr) ($IYr) ($lyr) ($lyr) Hydro 183,872E 0 0 0 0 183,872 file: //C:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTempWternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr,hmr Page 2 of 6 Generator 4 0 1 0 789 4,393 412 4,769 Generator 3 0 0 I_ 10 93 -660 + -557 Generator 2 - 0, _ 0 I^ 0 0 -818 -818 I Generator 1 _ Q° 0 O i 0 -787 -787 Boiler 0 0 'F 0 22,749 0 22,749 Other -- -- 0 _ 0 22,875 0 - 0 22,875 System i 183,872 Q t 23,674 27,234 -2,678 232,102 1,000,000 0 0 -1 .000,000 4.S -2,000.000 0 _-3,000.000 -4.000,000 Electrical Cash Flows 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 Year Number Production Fraction Component 1 (kWhlyr) I Hydro turbine 848,997 99% Generator 7,253 1% ! Generator 3 190 0% Generator 2 0 0% Generator 1 0 0% Total 856,439 100% 120 0 MonthIV Auera a Electric Production Jai Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Consumption Fraction Load I (kWhlyr) I � AC primary load 419,749 100% Total L 419,749 ' 100% Quantity j Value Units II Excess electricity 436,687 kWhlyr Unmet load 0.00 kWhlyr Capacity shortage 0.00 kWhlyr Renewable fraction 0.856 — Generator — Generator3 — Generator2 Generator 7 Hydro Capital Replacement Salvage * Operating Fuel Thermal file:RC:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTempWternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 3 of 6 Production Fraction Component — — (kWhlyr) Generator 4 4,918 1 % Generator 3 96 0% Boiler — 130,322 23% Excess electricity 436,687 76% Total 572,022 100% 80 � 80 E40 v ic 20 t nermai Nroauction jars reo near Apr pnayjun jui Aug aep ucr r4ov uec Consumption Fraction Load (kWhlyr) Thermal load 436,174 100% Total _ _ _ 436,174 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 135,848 kWhlyr Hydro Quantity ' Value i Units Nominal capacity 126 I kW Mean output 97 kW Capacity factor 77.1 % Total production 848,997 kWhlyr . Quantity Value Units 4 _. Minimum output 76 kW Maximum output 114 kW Hydro penetration 202 ' % Hours of operation 8,760 hrlyr l.evelized cost 0.217 $/kWh 24 0 Generator 4 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 526 hrlyr Number of starts 355 starts/yr Operational life 114 yr Capacity factor 1.81 % =Generator4 = Gene rator3 = 0enerator2 Generator 1 Boiler _-= E .cess Electricity kvu 116 108 100 92 84 76 I file:HCADocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal Settings\Temp\Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 4 of 6 Fixed generation cost 4.07 ; $Ihr Marginal generation cnst�0.451 $IkWhyr I Quantity Value Units Electrical production } 7,253 ` kWhfyr Mean electrical output ' 13.8 kW Min. electrical output 13.7 kW Max. electrical output l 20.1 (kW Thermal production 4,918 kWhfyr Mean thermal output 9.35 kW Min. thermal output 9.33 kW Max. thermal output 12.2 kWl Quantity I Value ` Units Fuel consumption } 3,009 Uyr Specific fuel consumption , 0.415 LIkWh Fuel energy input 29,607 kWhfyr t Mean electrical efficiency 24.5 % Mean total efficiency 41 A % 24 0 Generator 3 kW 21.0 16.8 12.6 8.4 4.2 0.0 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 7 hr/yr Number of starts 7 starts/yr Operational life I 8,571 yr Capacity factor ! 0.0264 % Fixed generation cost 4.23 , $Ihr Marginal generation cost 0.407 $IkWhyr Quantity Value t Units Electrical production - 190 ' kWhfyr Mean electrical output , 27.1 kW Min. electrical output I 24.6 kW Max. electrical output r 34.5 kW Thermal production 95.8 kWhfyr Mean thermal output 13.7 kW I Min. thermal output 12.7 kW Max. thermal output 16.5 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 63.5 i Uyr Specific fuel consumption 0.335 ' LIkWh Fuel energy input 625 kWhfyr Mean electrical efficiency 30.3 % file://C:1Documents and Settings\jdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Altemative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr,hmr Mean total efficiency I 45.7 � % Page 5 of 6 24 0 Generator 2 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 : yr Capacity factor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 15.8 i $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.309 $IkWhyr A Quantity Value ; Units Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output . 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0,00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW 1 Min. thermal output 0.00 kW 1 Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity _ Value Units Fuel consumption 1 0 LJyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L1kWn Fuel energy input 0 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 >,18 m 0 '6 12 0 0 x a 0 Generator I Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life f 1,000 I yr i Capacity factor I 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 12.6 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.371 $IkWhyr kW 38.0 28.8 21.6 14.4 7.2 0.0 kW 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 fileWCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Altemative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 2--Cucumber Cr.hmr Page 6 of 6 ValueTUnits �Electricalproduction d — 0.00 +kWhlyr .. ; Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical out rr 0.00 I kW _j Max. electrical output ---- 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 . kW _ Max. thermal output 0.00 kW 1 - - Quantity - Value Units Fuel consumption 0 Llyr 1 Specific fuel consumption 0.000 1 L/kWh Fuel energy input _ 0 : kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency _� 0.0 % _ 24 ro 18 a '6 12 0 0 x g Q Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kgfyr) Carbon dioxide 49,317 Carbon monoxide 20 Unburned hydocarbons 2.21 Particulate matter _ 1.51 i Sulfur dioxide — 101 Nitrogen oxides 178 kW 1.0 0.8 02 0.4 0.2 0.0 file:f/CADocuments and SettingsljdWyerlLocal Settings\TempWternative 2--Cucumber Cr.htm 1/28/2010 Knight Piesold O 4 N $ U L T IN a Appendix B-7 Alternative 3 at $3.78lgallon Diesel System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 1 of 6 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Sensitivity case CL town Scaled Average: I,150 kWh/d Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWhld Diesel Price: 1 $IL Entegrity EW50 Hub Height: 30 m Generator 4 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 System architecture Hydro 98 kW Generator 4 45.8 kW Generator 3 81.9 kW Generator 2113 kW Generator 1 135 kW Cost summary Total net present cost $ 3,735,002 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.3247kWh Operating cost L $ 85,1621yr 2,500,000 2,000,000 IR i1,500,000 a U 'A 1 ,000,000 a 500,000 x 0 — Hydra — Generator 4 — Generator 3 — Generator 2 — Generator 1 — Boiler Other U -500,000 Capital Replacement Operating Fuel Salv Net Present Costs Capital Replacement O&M T el Salvage To i Component Hydro 2,044,000 1 0 0: 0. 0; 21044,000 Generator 4 0 . 16,397 f 10 427,554 -1,8 551,073 Generator 3 0 0 17,245 114,286 343 122,188 Generator 2 0 0 119 1,811 16,721 -14,791 Generator 1 0 1 0 0 0 r -15,635 -15,635 Boiler _ 0 0 0 593,9 4 0 593,954 Other 0 0 454,211 0 0 454,211 System 2,044,000 16,397 580,586 1,1 7,606 -43,588 3,735,002 Annualized Costs Capital Replacement O&M I uel Salvage Total Component i - - ($!yr) - ($Iyr) ($lyr) ($lyr) I ($Iyr) 1 ($Iyr) Hydro 102,940 0 r 0 ; 0 0 . 102,940 file.//CADocuments and Settingsljdwyerl oval Settings\Temp\Alternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 2 of 6 Generator 4 0 826 5,490 21,532 -95 27,753 Generator 3 0 0 868 5,756 -471 6,154 Generator 2 0 0 6 91 -842 -745 Generator 1 1 0! 0 0 0 -787 -787 Boiler 0 1-- _-0 E -- 0 29,913 0 29,913 Other 0 11 0 r 22,875 0 0 22,875 System 102,940 fi 826 * 29,239 57,292 -2,195 188,102 500,000 0 Q-500,000 LL -1,000,000 -i ,500,000 0 z -2,000,000 -2,500,000 Electrical Cash Flows 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282931] Year Humber Production Fraction Component (kWh/yr) Hydro turbine 522,646 88% Generator 4 52,395 9% Generator 3 17,479 I 3% Generator 2 254 0% Generator 1 0 0% Total 592,774 100% 100 _ 80 60 40 0 a 20 0 T Consumption Fraction Load - - - - (kWhtyr) I AC primary load 419,749 100% Total 419,749 100% Quantity Value Units Excess electricity 1 173,029 kWh/yr Unmet load 0.000206 kWh/yr Capacity shortage ` 0.00 : kWh/yr Renewable fraction 0.589 I — Generator — Gen erator3 Generator2 Generator 1 Hydro — Capital Replacement Salvage -= Operating — Fuel Thermal -I I file:HCADocuments and SettingsljdwyerlLocal Settings\Temp\Alternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 3 of 6 f Production Fraction1 . Component --- (kWh/yr) Generator 4 35,088 8% Generator 3 8,614 2% Generator 2 142 0% Boiler 250,190 54% Excess electricity ', 173,029 37% Total _ 467,063 100% 80 0 Load Consumption Fraction rr (kWhlyr) { Thermal load 436,174 100% I} Total 436,174 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 30,889 kWh/yr Hydro Quantity Value ! Units Nominal capacity 98.0 kW Mean output 59.7 kW Capacity factor 60.9 % ' Total production 522,646 kWhlyr ! Quantity Value Units Minimum output 42.6 kW Maximum output 83.3 kW 1 Hydro penetration 125 % Hours of operation 8,760 'ff hr/yr Levelized cost _ 10.197 I $/kWh — 0enerator4 — Generator3 Genefator2 Generator 1 Boner E cess Electricity kW 86.0 76.0 67.0 58.0 40.0 40.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Uct NOV Dec Generator 4 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 3,660 ; hrlyr Number of starts 1,254 startslyr Operational life 16.4 yr file:HC:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTemp\Alternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 4 of 6 Capacity factor 13.1 % Fixed generation cost 3.39 $/hr { Marginal generation cost 0.309 $IkWhyr , Quantity Value ; Units Electrical production 52,395� kWh/yr Mean electrical output 14.3 I kW Min. electrical output 13.7 kW Max. electrical outputM 21.4 j kW Thermal product -son 35,088 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 9.59 kW Min. thermal output 9.33 kW Max. thermal output 12.8 kW Quantity Value I Units Fuel consumption 21,533 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.411 LIkWh Fuel energy input 211,880 - kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 24.7 1 % Mean total efficiency 41.3 % m 0 's 3 0 x Generator 3 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 579 hrlyr 1 — Number of starts 397 I startslyr Operational life I 104 yr Capacity factor 2.44 % Fixed generation cost 3.53 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.279 $IkWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 1 17,479 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 30.2 kW Min, electrical output 24.6E kW Max. electrical output 59.2 I kW Thermal production 8,614 kWhlyr 4 Mean thermal output 14.9 kW Min. thermal output 12.7 kW — Max. thermal output 26.0 kW Quantity i Value Units Fuel consumption 5,756 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.329 LIkWh Fuel energy input I 56,636 kWhlyr I l kW 24,0 19.2 14.4 9.6 4.8 0.0 fileWCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Locai Settings\Temp\Alternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Mean electrical efficiency 30.9 Mean total efficiency 46.1 : %_ 24 Generator 3 Output m 18 0 12 0 a x g 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Generator 2 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 4 hrlyr Number of starts 4 starts/yr Operational life 15,000 yr Capacity factor 0.0257 Fixed generation cost 11.5 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.212 $/kWhyr Quantity Value ' Units Electrical production 254 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 63.5 kW Min. electrical output 60.9 kW Max. electrical output 67.9 kW Thermal production 142 ; kWhlyr Mean thermal output 35.4 kW Min, thermal output 34.8 kW Max. thermal output 36.5 kW T Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 91.2 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.359 ' L1kWh Fuel energy input 898 kWh/yr i Mean electrical efficiency 28.3 % i Mean total efficiency 44.1 % Generator 1 fl Sep Oct Nov Dee kUU 60 48 36 24 12 0 kW 70 56 42 28 14 0 Quantity Value , Units Hours of operation 0 hrlyr j Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacity factor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 9.29 $/hr file.HCAD,ocuments and SettingsljdwyerTocal Settings\Temp\Alternative 3--Landing Cr.htm Page 5 of 6 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hrnr Page 6 of 6 Marginal generation cost i 0.254 $/kWhyr { Quantity I Value I Units Electrical production 0.00 I kWhlyr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output L 0.00 kW Max. electrical output I 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity Value i Units Fuel consumption I 0 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 0 jan Feb near Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep uct NOV Poo Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kglyr) Carbon dioxide 151,244 4 Carbon monoxide 178 Unburned hydocarbons _ 19.7 Particulate matter 13.4 Sulfur dioxide 307 Nitrogen oxides 1,588 kW 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 a.a file:HC:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTemplA.lternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 Knight Piesold C O N S U LYING Appendix B-8 Alternative 3 at $4.621gallon Diesel System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 1 of 6 Sensitivity case CL_town Scaled Averages 1,150 kWh/d Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWhld Diesel Price: 1.22 $IL Entegrity EW50 Hub Height: 30 m Generator 4 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 System architecture Hydro 98 kW Generator 445.8 kW Generator 3 81.9 kW Generator 2 113 kW Generator 1 135 kW Cost summary Total net present cost $ 3,985,259 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.3271kWh Operating cost $ 97,766/yr 2,500,000 2,000,000 40 ; 1 ,500,000 0 V 1,000,000 a 500,000 Ell -500,000 Cash Flow Summary — Hydro — Generator 4 ® Generator 3 — Generator 2 — Generator 1 Bailer Other Capital Replacement Operating Fuel Salvage Net Present Costs Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component4Capital - � - - -- Hydro 2,044,000 0 0 0 ' 0 2,044,000 Generator 0 16,385 108,832 520,444 -1,923 643,738 Generator 3 0 0 17,424 140.645 -9,303 148,766 Generator 2 0 0 119 2,210 -16,721-14,392 Generator 1 0 0 0 0 -15,635-15,635 Boiler 0 0 0 724,569 0 724,569 Other 0 0 454,211 0 f 0 454,211 System 2,044,000 16,385 580,586 1,387,868 -43,582 3,985,257 Annualized Costs Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component ($lyr) ($lyr) ($lyr) ($lyr) . ($/yr) ($lyr) Hydro 102,940 0 0 0 0 102,940 file: //C:1Documents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settingffernp\A.lternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 2 of 6 Generator 4 I 0 825 5,481 26,211 -97 32,420 Generator 3 1— 0 0 877 7,083 -469 7,492 , Generator 2 0 0 6 111 -842 -725 Generator 1 0. 0 0 0 -787 -787 Boiler 0 0 0 36,491 0 36,491 Other -- - 0 0 22,875 0 0 22,875 System 1 102,940 825 29,239 69,896 -2.195 200,705 500,000 0 4-500,000 1,000,000 1,500.000 0 z -2,000,000 -2,500,000 Cash Flows 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 Electrical Production ° Fraction Component (kWhlyr) ' Hydro turbine 522,646 88% Generator 4 52,267 9% Generator 3 17,626 3% Generator 2 254 0% Generator 1 0 0% Total 592,793 100% 100 _ 80 �r 60 40 0 a 20 0 Year Number tiecrnc rroaucnon 1 1 1 1 Jun �IJul �lA! �lS! I! Nou l�lDeci ad Consumption Fraction Load I (kWhlyr) AC primary load 419,749 100% Total _ 419,749 _ 100% Quantity Value 1 Units Excess electricity 173,048 kWhlyr I Unmet load 0.000206 kWhlyr Capacity shortage 0.00 kWhlyr Renewable fraction 0.589 — Generator4 — Generator3 Generator — Generator 1 Hydro — Capital Replacement Salvage Operating — Fuel Thermal � I fileWCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TempWtemative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 3 of 6 Production Fraction Component -------- (kWhlyr) G Generator 4 35,01.1 j 7% Generator 3 8,691 �,-- 2% ' Generator 2 142 0% Boiler 250,171 54% Excess electricity 173,048 37% Total — 1 467,063 100% 80 3� 80 40 w W 20 Month Average Thermal Production .Ian Fwh M— Aor Mav Jun Aul Aua Se❑ Oct Nov Dec Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) Thermal load 436,174 100% Total _1 436,174 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 30,889 kWhlyr Hydro Quantity ! Value Units Nominal capacity 98.0 1 kW Mean output }' 59.7 kW Capacity factor 60.9 % Total production 522,646 kWhlyr Quantity Value Units Minimum output ' 42.6 kW Maximum output 83.3 kW Hydro penetration 125 r %U Hours of operation 8,760 hr/yr I Levelized cost ! 0.197 $/kWh 24 H >. 16 n 12 0 0 x 6 07 - Generator 4 — Generator4 — Generator3 Generator — Generator 1 e Boiler E cess Eleducity M 85.0 76.0 67.0 68.0 49.1) 40.0 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 13,654 hrlyr Number of starts 1,257 startslyr Operational life � 16.4 yr I file://C:\Documents and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TempWtemative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 4 of 5 Capacity factor 13.0 % Fixed generation cost 3.72� $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.377 . $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units 1 Electrical production 52,267 kWhlyr ' Mean electrical output 14.3 kW Min. electrical output 13.7 kW Max. electrical output 21.3 kW Thermal production 35,011 kWhlyr j I Mean thermal output 9.58 kW Min. thermal output 9.33 kW Max. thermal output 12.7 kW Quantity - Value Units Fuel consumption 21,484 Uyr Specific Fuel consumption 0.411 L/kWh I Fuel energy input 211,403 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 24.7 % Mean total efficiency 41.3 % 24 0 Jan Feb Mar Apt May JUn Jul AUg Sep uct Nov Ueo Generator 3 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 585 hrlyr Number of starts 400 startslyr Operational life 103 yr ' Capacity factor 2,46 1 % Fixed generation cost 1 3.87 I $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.341 $/kWhyr L_ Quantity Value Units Electrical production - - 17,626 kWhlyr i Mean electrical output 30.1 kW Min. electrical output I 24.6 ; kW Max. electrical output} 59.2 kW Thermal production 8,691 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 14.9 kW Min. thermal output 12.7 kW Max. thermal output 26.0 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 5,806 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.329 ; L/kWh Fuel energy input I 57,130 kWhlyr ! 1 k1,U 24.0 19.2 14.4 9.6 4.8 0A lile:HCADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Loeal SettingslTemp\Alternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Mean electrical efficiency 30.9 % Mean total efficiency _ 46.1 � % 24 Q-nerater 2 Oadnuf 0 an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep uct NOV vec Generator 2 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 4 hr/yr J- — Number of starts 4 startslyr Operational life 15,000 yr Capacity factor 0.0257 % Fixed generation cost 13.6 $Ihr Marginal generation cost 0.258 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 254 . kWhlyr Mean electrical output 63.5 kW Min. electrical output 60.9 kW Max. electrical output 67.9 . kW Thermal production 142 kWhlyr i Mean thermal output 35.4 ' kW Min. thermal output 34.8 kW i�:::36.5 Max. thermal output kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 91.2 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.359 LIkWh Fuel energy input 898 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 28.3 I % { Mean total efficiency 1 44.1 % 24 0 Generator i kW 1i0 to 48 as 24 12 0 kW 7© 56 42 28 14 0 Quantity Value I Units Hours of operation 0 hrlyr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacity factor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 10.9 $Ihr file:HCADocuments and Settingsljdwycr\Local Settings\Temp\A.lternative 3--Landing Cr.htm Page 5 of 6 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page b of 5 Marginal generation cost ! 0.310 ; $IkWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean electrical output , 0.00 kW Min_ electrical output 0.00 1 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 _ kW 1 Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr I Mean thermal output t 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.0o kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW �^ --Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 kWhlyr { Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 1 - Gp-nPratnr 1 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kglyr) Carbon dioxide 151,243 Carbon monoxide 178 Unburned hydocarbons 19.7 Particulate matter 13.4 Sulfur dioxide 307 Nitrogen oxides 1.588 HUV 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1i1e://CADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local SettingslTempWternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/29/2010 Knight Piesold c O N s u L r 1 n G Appendix B-9 Alternative 3 at $5.541gallon Diesel System Report - Altemative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 1 of 6 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Sensitivity case CL_town Scaled Average: 1,150 kWh/d Thermal Load 1 Scaled Average: 1,195 kWhld Diesel Price: 1.46 $IL Entegrity, EW50 Hub Height: 30 m Generator 4 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 3 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 2 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 Generator 1 O&M Cost Multiplier: 1.5 System architecture .Hydro 98 kW ;Generator 445.8 kW .Generator 3 81.9 kW Generator 2113 kW Generator 1 135 kW Cost summary Total net present cost $ 4,258,262 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.3301kWh Operating cost $ 111,5151yr 2,500.000 2,000,000 1j 1,500,000 V t 1,000poo a.16 500.000 x a -500,000 uasn i-iow Capital Replacement Operating Fuel Salvage Net Present Costs *•- Hydro — Generator 4 — Generator 3 — Generator 2 — Generator 1 — Boller Other Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component Hydro i 2,044,000 0 0 0 0 2,044,000 Generator 4 0 16,383 r- 108,802 622,390 -1,928 ; 745,646 Generator 3 0 ❑ 17,632 170,588 -9,257 178,963 Generator 2 0 0 30 688 -16,746 -16,028 Generator 1 j 0 0 0 0 -15,635 -15,635 Boiler 0 0 f ❑ : 867,103 ❑ 867,103 Other 0 0 454,211 0 0 454,211 System 2,044,000 16,383 580,676 1,660,769 -43,566 : 4,258,260 Annualized Costs Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Component ($lyr) I ($iyr) ($lyr) ($!yr) i ($lyr) ($lyr) Hydro 102,940 0 0 0 0 102,940 fi1e:8CADocuments and SettingsljdwyerTocal Settings\TempWtemative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Generator 4 i 0 82525 5,479 31,345 -97 37,552 Generator 3 0 0 888 I 8,591 -466 j 9,013� Generator 2 ; 0 -- -- 0 1 35 — -843 -807 Generator 1 0 0 . 0 0 -787 -787 Boiler 0 - - 0 0 43,669 — 0 , 43,669 ^0ther 0 0 22,875 0 0 22,875 System —1 102.940 825 , 29,244 83,640 -2,194 214,454 500,000 0 o-500,000 -1,000,000 -1,500,000 0 -2,000,000 -2,500,000 Cash Flows d-®- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 Year Number Electrical Production Fraction Component (kWhlyr) Hydra turbine 522,646 88% Generator 4 52,223 ' 90/6 Generator 3 17,870 3% Generator 2 68 ; 0% Generator 1 - 0 0% Total 592,806 100% 100 _ 80 60 40 0 rl 20 0 jan reo mar sapr may jun jur siva aep ucR nov 0ei Consumption Fraction Load ! (kWhlyr) AC primary load I 419,749 100% Total 419,749 -- 100% Quantity Value Units Excess electricity 173,061 kWhlyr Unmet load 0,000198 kWhlyr Capacity shortage 1 0.00 kWh/yr Renewable fraction 0.589 Generator4 Generator Generator 2 Generator 1 -- Hydro Capital Replacement Salvage Operating — Fuel Page 2 of 6 Thermal I 1 file://C:1Documents and SettingsljdwyerlLocal SettingslTemp\Altemative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 3 of 6 Production Fraction I Component --- -- (kWhlyr) Generator 4 -- 34,988 _- 7% Generator 3 8,807 2% Generator 2 36 0% Boiler 250,170 54% Excess electricity 173,061 37% Total _ l� 467,063 100% 80 0 Month Average Thermal Production ■ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug $ep Qet Nou Dec Consumption Fraction� Load -- 'i (kWhlyr) Thermal load 436,174 100% Total 436,174 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy i 30,889 kWhlyr Hydro Quantity Value I Units Nominal capacity 98.0 i kW Mean output 59.7 kW Capacity factor 60.9 % Total production 522,646 kWhlyr Quantity Value I Units Minimum output _ 42.6 kW Maximum output 83.3 , kW 1 Hydro penetration 125 Hours of operation 8,760 hrlyr Levelized cost i 0.197 $IkWh Generator 4 Generator 3 Generator Generator 1 Boiler Excess Electricity kW 83.0 75.0 67.0 58.0 49.0 40.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Generator 4 Quantity Value : Units Hours of operation 3,653 hrlyr Number of starts fi 1,259 starts/yr Operational life 16.4 ''i yr file:HC:\Documents and SettingsljdwyerTocal SettingslTemp\Alternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1 /28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Capacity factor I 13.0 % 1 Page 4 of 6 Fixed generation cost 4.07 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.451 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 52,223 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 14.3 kW Min. electrical output 13.7 kW Max. electrical output 21.2 kW Thermal production 34,988 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 9.58 kW Min. thermal output 9.33 kW Max. thermal output 12.7 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 21,469 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.411 L/kWh Fuel energy input 211,255 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 24.7 % Mean total efficiency 41.3 % 24 ;-, 18 M 0 '15 12 0 0 x g 0 Wi 24.9 19 14.4 9.0 4.8 0.0 Generator 3 Quantity Value units Hours of operation 592 hr/yr Number of starts 399 starts/yr Operational life 1 101 yr Capacity factor t 2.49 Fixed generation cost 4.23 $Ihr Marginal generation cost i 0.407 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 17,870 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 30.2 kW Min. electrical output 24.6 kW Max. electrical output 59.2 kW Thermal production 8,807 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 14.9 kW Min. thermal output 12.7 kW Max. thermal output 26.0 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 5,884 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.329 L/kWh Fuel energy input � 57,902 kWhlyr I I 1'ile:1/CADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\TempWternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Mean electrical efficiency ' 30.9 % Mean total efficiency 46.1 % — 24 �, IS fu 0 12 0 0 x g 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr may Jun Generator 2 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nav Dee __Quantity Value—�U d Hours of operation 1 ! hrlyr Number of starts 1 ' starts/yr I Operational life 60,000 yr Capacity factor 0.00686 % Fixed generation cost I 15.8 $Ihr Marginal generation cost L 0.309 $lkWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 67.9 kWhlyr Mean electrical output 67.9 kW Min. electrical output 67.9 kW Max. electrical output 67.9 kW l Thermal production 36.5 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 36.5 kW Min. thermal output 36.5 kW Max. thermal output 36.5 kW F Quantity Value Units i Fuel consumption 23.7 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.350 L1kWh I Fuel energy input 234 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 29.1 % Mean total efficiency j 44.7 % 24 D Generator 1 kW ea 48 36 24 12 0 kW 70 36 42 28 14 0 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 ` hrlyr Number of starts 0 startstyr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacity factor 0,00 % Fixed generation cost 12.6 $/hr Page 5 of 6 f1e:1/CADocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\A.lternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 System Report - Alternative 3--Landing Cr.hmr Page 6 of 6 Marginal generation cost : 0.371 $IkWhyr QuantityY Value { Units Electrical production ^� 0.00 I kWhlyr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWhlyr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity i Value . Units i Fuel consumption j 0 Llyr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 LIkWh Fuel energy input 0 kWhlyr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency —1 0.0 % M 0 a x Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kglyr) Carbon dioxide 151,232 Carbon monoxide 178 Unburned hydocarbons 19.7 Particulate matter 13.4 Sulfur dioxide 307 Nitrogen oxides 1,588 kW 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 D.D file://C:IDocuments and Settingsljdwyer\Local Settings\Temp\Alternative 3--Landing Cr.htm 1/28/2010 Knight he'sold C O N S U L T I NO Appendix C Community Planning Map of Chignik Lake W al a N W a J . I ----------------+-� 3 i � I jo N N L w Ln I I I ow I �3 1n I. I 7 g---- --- --�-= z s8 21 e LO Ld N �I 1 Oz \ �o �m W wl w o LAl zl I sw�l 9pal Im I Z u I Lu OgODw 111 7 Z ~Sc=s6.1 y 61 to En .Iu " - a zl -.. -�w;: • - ro � S. U I U W LN `Vzn U J Kni ht Pcc'sold C V N 6 U L T J N 0 Appendix D Design Drawings for Existing Chignik Lake Power Plant 11a US �CG Ohl a ohs M pr y 111h 8Q 81 a � tja e g <� 2 _ Kill WN � d � �= a is a - - �� Cl " g g N O 2 d Z _ Q�gna w i � ~a - w VIA �Y:�We>pff a yRI by4UN Q, @ E IS11p. y 3�� N41 an, WIN! 11 £ " g g gg o3db E g s Oliva Wn IX �Ellr�� g yGt�L§� kY �C 0�7t�! Fi 5. k 99 r8�� 111YYY pAs; � y i� A ng g qjq is oIf 9� QUA gpsi mg di IN d • a YY d8r �-yg�go gg �� yy rill p! €- :9 l W Z z 1 W ^s '�5 I .aoz Y z ua an LL o z N o z a v= " s� m� reel A g Y -frf i x` � �� w a ❑ a g z o a W w z tn 5m S s£ kk`1e:e 1 ,/ \ w: U z a J w �� x ryzb yg� \LLJ S v w aQQ4'� to Olt All a- ozl � hyfs'• of oel� � o l l i S J g gY Z w Z Zy� 5g bo9gIyg� 1 All ..rt br a El Cy z _ Y W a� N a % b a C lo a s yg3g3�� J w Q C) U) LL Q O 0- 0 w v 0 w 1 [.'J Y Z d gg � � N rHa VI F W U U � C Z VE)- 7 O �kj f � U W B i Z Alf y W e Z t—i w 4 cnc W V Q o hL Q Ina U o kE n W a n U LL o z z a y O Q V a 2 z g U F-:5 O N a ` z� Z a s J Z a wY o ag s r� ag di Y W 7 °. F $ gi Q Y � J dd i y 3q7¢Q Gnu' g Imo\\O.. U C QQ N- o a d; a� j � � � P;P•� "t+141 40 ��Fo'1 I � 11 Y.••. I � � � Il�h ��� ii�• r it I yr££ k Jun C .ggi g �� as I - � o I I € a a s wIL„ - Ea x• Y \ 5� 9 3+ � Y� 1 w�O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO U 8 ga CAS m Q In a rn a o I U � � 21 - o oz gm I to g o LLJ Ld C w N qWq 'm i H g3 aZ2 .J p a g c~ii x W Y W ,y W Y 7 m U p g U G d a ®s Ld At 3 # sue•: ""``I f! 6 n_ n s tiff ' ri & oil I"�� Re ETA n LEI ' sails 3 o ff Nei o $ $ a�� as a §k"�an� 7s 8 g sal 2C-s w o s= _ ?i se g $off= " w.w H _�� s 'Y sz� E6 c�3 yw� 19ti mg N ASig CH te 'gig �e§ �� �3 w �_ _ w ss� figo egg$ FS S ape Er 19 e w £e w$ Y cit 3 �_ 9�< U o z;cN W Ua z N c7m pigJ z Z - $$„ U FO 7 a p W e�3 LL o z W L Y <n = —j wo� a <Aa H 0 �o zoz� �i Ina � ao 6< (a m OLJ a= o o¢ o a S fl "r Is d „ s 5 5 _ ofi �R w 4 M1'VY \\� �� •�i - III\`S: • ,16._ / K g 5@ � � w _ O 73�3 gill o ro O Rr z O � O SuSM~ w O O- y si O yQ gg o U � (n ® II eg � �>g ' II 25X4 j btt $ i§ o� 20 w �- z �� �n� sa. ---Wf A g9 oil 4 9 8'� 8 i g g� ka�� _A �sm4 G Kind e e� z�12ssaam a ss@ �s - rPl� 81121 11 1 m1i HK i� �y s� z g 'op q J Q n ¢ 0 N o U (n ~ S a w w z a ISO. �8 � _ a „ OF g ?+ S 5 H i 00 U� dab o = a �a �B$_3 U Y x z buy "tax gb - g UIsar Q $ rn 5� y� I f 9i.+ � :•' gg q w qc au _ j i z Z Ld J � $$a E � a agg O O ® Wl e ,I-* 0 Z $ W w J � c U U)W J g W LL a Z a F- a CL CL a N W M IMdN w mld � e Mot . 0 ae �s rg sW o yak Q W o ¢Al CY W N 3 w s oz€ 's W z m W e fog I Ig IN 110111OIX 161 : tips ej �° DIN Ole rs WOW s-ass= = . m}j_a ��3��$ry��s,�a ���� � +,gn N 5,b �� 5 b� i 3ae SF x� Z ��` a � 9�9 IVA I � 5¢S H o t 9 a • RI W W t Zwn_____-n_'_^- _-.-_-___ g� Pa$ 6 - B � 333 D "� F 25 —_ g � Fi � �'2� s � � ❑ 6•r i •� E a E. l ❑ U 'o PA � U 5 c g o >rw a � Mn e gear $ 1 s hx s cs FIF FRi -------------- 99 pry 9 e V O _ G a. w ' o a f^�f agi ! ll_ fi-.I 11A I _Ill=1_II I _I_I -1I-- - 111_ Iil S r � N � Y>h � � B •�6� sy8 o$h 6 @ _ s :2Uq Q z co w a W w a� z zv m LL a p G7 Q Ux a z W Z 8 ✓ N W I N W U oiaEn K ��� _ �m5 F s ❑� w agaQW�� z 0> .2 x a a U u ------------ w 1 H N - x � � s oil Knight Piesold C 4 M S U L T i M G Photos .a Mr y' ,� 1 1 E .� �Y / � n Off �. s�. Kw� �4Y ��� _. � �: � ��� 1._ -� i \ 1, I. ,` �� � � � ��J f/; 1 :' �4 i I� I VATS